Infectious Diseases

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.

Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).

“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. But [while] immunocompromise plays a role, it isn’t the only story, given that even with well-controlled HIV there is increased risk,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”

Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.

Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.

In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.

Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
 

Key chronic lung diseases

Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.

A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.

COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”

Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.

A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”

Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.

It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.

Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.

Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to

Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
 

Potential drivers

A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.

All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”

Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”

They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.

Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.

Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.

Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.

“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.

The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
 

Key questions in an evolving research landscape

Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).

The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.

Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)

Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.

[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]

For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?

There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.

None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.¹ We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.

Risk factors identified

The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.

We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.

Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.

The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
 

What is the clinical significance?

Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).

Michael Pichichero, MD

In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.² We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.

Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.

Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.³ Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.

In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.

2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.¹ We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.

Risk factors identified

The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.

We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.

Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.

The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
 

What is the clinical significance?

Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).

Michael Pichichero, MD

In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.² We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.

Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.

Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.³ Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.

In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.

2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.¹ We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.

Risk factors identified

The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.

We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.

Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.

The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
 

What is the clinical significance?

Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).

Michael Pichichero, MD

In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.² We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.

Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.

Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.³ Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.

In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.

2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a striking paucity of representations of patients with skin of color (SOC) in the dermatology literature. Was COVID-19 underdiagnosed in this patient population due to a lack of patient-centered resources and inadequate dermatology training; reduced access to care, resulting from social determinants of health and reduced skin-color concordance; or the absence of population-based prevalence studies?

Tan et al¹ reviewed 51 articles describing skin findings secondary to COVID-19. Patients were stratified by country of origin, which yielded an increased prevalence of cutaneous manifestations among Americans and Europeans compared to Asians, but patients were not stratified by race.¹ However, in one case series of 318 predominantly American patients, 89% were White and 0.7% were Black.² This systematic review by Tan et al¹ suggested that skin manifestations of COVID-19 were present in patients with SOC but less frequently than in White patients. However, case series are not a strong proxy for population-level prevalence.

More broadly, patients with SOC are underrepresented in Google image search results, as the medical resource websites (eg, DermNet [https://dermnetnz.org], MedicalNewsToday [www.medicalnewstoday.com], and Healthline [www.healthline.com]) are lacking these images.³ As a result, it is difficult for patients with SOC to recognize diseases presenting in darker skin types. This same tendency may exist for COVID-19 skin manifestations. A systematic review found that articles describing cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 almost exclusively presented images of lighter skin and completely omitted darker skin.⁴ If images of patients with SOC are absent from online resources, it is increasingly unlikely for these patients to recognize if their skin lesions are associated with COVID-19, which may result in a decrease in the number of patients with SOC presenting with skin lesions secondary to COVID-19, thereby influencing the representation of patients with SOC in case studies.

The lack of representation of SOC in online resources mirrors the paucity of images in dermatology textbooks. According to a search of 7170 images in major dermatology textbooks, most images depicted light or white skin (80.6%), followed by medium or brown skin in 15.5% of images and dark or black skin in only 3.9%.⁵ Physicians rely on online and print resources for making diagnoses; inadequate resources highlight a component of a larger issue: inadequate training of dermatologists in SOC. In a survey of American dermatologists and dermatology residents (N=262), 47% thought that their medical education had not adequately trained them on skin conditions in Black patients.⁶

A lack of adequate training for dermatologists may decrease the rate of correct diagnosis of skin lesions secondary to COVID-19 in patients with SOC. A lack of trust in the health care system and social determinants of health may hinder patients with SOC from seeking medical help. Dermatology is the second least diverse of medical specialties; only 3% of dermatologists are Black.⁷ This is impactful: First, because minority physicians are increasingly likely to provide care for patients of the same race or background, and second, because race-concordant physician visits are associated with greater patient-reported positive affect.⁷ A lack of availability of race-concordant physicians or physicians with perceived cultural competence may deter patients with SOC from seeking help, which may be further prevalent in dermatologic practice.

Barriers at all levels of social determinants of health hinder access to health care. Patients with SOC experience greater housing insecurity, increased reliance on public transportation, more issues with health literacy, and limited English-language fluency.⁸ Combined, these factors equate to decreased access to health care resources and subsequently a lack of inclusion in case studies.

COVID-19 infection disproportionately affects patients with SOC,⁸ but there is a clear lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 dermatology literature. It is imperative to investigate factors that may contribute to this inequity. Recognizing skin manifestations can play a role in diagnosing COVID-19; increased awareness of its presentation in darker skin types may help bridge existing racial inequities. It is vital that physicians receive adequate resources and training to be able to recognize cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in all skin types. Finally, it is important to recognize that the lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 literature represents a larger trend that exists in dermatologic research that warrants further investigation and advocacy for inclusivity.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a striking paucity of representations of patients with skin of color (SOC) in the dermatology literature. Was COVID-19 underdiagnosed in this patient population due to a lack of patient-centered resources and inadequate dermatology training; reduced access to care, resulting from social determinants of health and reduced skin-color concordance; or the absence of population-based prevalence studies?

Tan et al¹ reviewed 51 articles describing skin findings secondary to COVID-19. Patients were stratified by country of origin, which yielded an increased prevalence of cutaneous manifestations among Americans and Europeans compared to Asians, but patients were not stratified by race.¹ However, in one case series of 318 predominantly American patients, 89% were White and 0.7% were Black.² This systematic review by Tan et al¹ suggested that skin manifestations of COVID-19 were present in patients with SOC but less frequently than in White patients. However, case series are not a strong proxy for population-level prevalence.

More broadly, patients with SOC are underrepresented in Google image search results, as the medical resource websites (eg, DermNet [https://dermnetnz.org], MedicalNewsToday [www.medicalnewstoday.com], and Healthline [www.healthline.com]) are lacking these images.³ As a result, it is difficult for patients with SOC to recognize diseases presenting in darker skin types. This same tendency may exist for COVID-19 skin manifestations. A systematic review found that articles describing cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 almost exclusively presented images of lighter skin and completely omitted darker skin.⁴ If images of patients with SOC are absent from online resources, it is increasingly unlikely for these patients to recognize if their skin lesions are associated with COVID-19, which may result in a decrease in the number of patients with SOC presenting with skin lesions secondary to COVID-19, thereby influencing the representation of patients with SOC in case studies.

The lack of representation of SOC in online resources mirrors the paucity of images in dermatology textbooks. According to a search of 7170 images in major dermatology textbooks, most images depicted light or white skin (80.6%), followed by medium or brown skin in 15.5% of images and dark or black skin in only 3.9%.⁵ Physicians rely on online and print resources for making diagnoses; inadequate resources highlight a component of a larger issue: inadequate training of dermatologists in SOC. In a survey of American dermatologists and dermatology residents (N=262), 47% thought that their medical education had not adequately trained them on skin conditions in Black patients.⁶

A lack of adequate training for dermatologists may decrease the rate of correct diagnosis of skin lesions secondary to COVID-19 in patients with SOC. A lack of trust in the health care system and social determinants of health may hinder patients with SOC from seeking medical help. Dermatology is the second least diverse of medical specialties; only 3% of dermatologists are Black.⁷ This is impactful: First, because minority physicians are increasingly likely to provide care for patients of the same race or background, and second, because race-concordant physician visits are associated with greater patient-reported positive affect.⁷ A lack of availability of race-concordant physicians or physicians with perceived cultural competence may deter patients with SOC from seeking help, which may be further prevalent in dermatologic practice.

Barriers at all levels of social determinants of health hinder access to health care. Patients with SOC experience greater housing insecurity, increased reliance on public transportation, more issues with health literacy, and limited English-language fluency.⁸ Combined, these factors equate to decreased access to health care resources and subsequently a lack of inclusion in case studies.

COVID-19 infection disproportionately affects patients with SOC,⁸ but there is a clear lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 dermatology literature. It is imperative to investigate factors that may contribute to this inequity. Recognizing skin manifestations can play a role in diagnosing COVID-19; increased awareness of its presentation in darker skin types may help bridge existing racial inequities. It is vital that physicians receive adequate resources and training to be able to recognize cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in all skin types. Finally, it is important to recognize that the lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 literature represents a larger trend that exists in dermatologic research that warrants further investigation and advocacy for inclusivity.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a striking paucity of representations of patients with skin of color (SOC) in the dermatology literature. Was COVID-19 underdiagnosed in this patient population due to a lack of patient-centered resources and inadequate dermatology training; reduced access to care, resulting from social determinants of health and reduced skin-color concordance; or the absence of population-based prevalence studies?

Tan et al¹ reviewed 51 articles describing skin findings secondary to COVID-19. Patients were stratified by country of origin, which yielded an increased prevalence of cutaneous manifestations among Americans and Europeans compared to Asians, but patients were not stratified by race.¹ However, in one case series of 318 predominantly American patients, 89% were White and 0.7% were Black.² This systematic review by Tan et al¹ suggested that skin manifestations of COVID-19 were present in patients with SOC but less frequently than in White patients. However, case series are not a strong proxy for population-level prevalence.

More broadly, patients with SOC are underrepresented in Google image search results, as the medical resource websites (eg, DermNet [https://dermnetnz.org], MedicalNewsToday [www.medicalnewstoday.com], and Healthline [www.healthline.com]) are lacking these images.³ As a result, it is difficult for patients with SOC to recognize diseases presenting in darker skin types. This same tendency may exist for COVID-19 skin manifestations. A systematic review found that articles describing cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 almost exclusively presented images of lighter skin and completely omitted darker skin.⁴ If images of patients with SOC are absent from online resources, it is increasingly unlikely for these patients to recognize if their skin lesions are associated with COVID-19, which may result in a decrease in the number of patients with SOC presenting with skin lesions secondary to COVID-19, thereby influencing the representation of patients with SOC in case studies.

The lack of representation of SOC in online resources mirrors the paucity of images in dermatology textbooks. According to a search of 7170 images in major dermatology textbooks, most images depicted light or white skin (80.6%), followed by medium or brown skin in 15.5% of images and dark or black skin in only 3.9%.⁵ Physicians rely on online and print resources for making diagnoses; inadequate resources highlight a component of a larger issue: inadequate training of dermatologists in SOC. In a survey of American dermatologists and dermatology residents (N=262), 47% thought that their medical education had not adequately trained them on skin conditions in Black patients.⁶

A lack of adequate training for dermatologists may decrease the rate of correct diagnosis of skin lesions secondary to COVID-19 in patients with SOC. A lack of trust in the health care system and social determinants of health may hinder patients with SOC from seeking medical help. Dermatology is the second least diverse of medical specialties; only 3% of dermatologists are Black.⁷ This is impactful: First, because minority physicians are increasingly likely to provide care for patients of the same race or background, and second, because race-concordant physician visits are associated with greater patient-reported positive affect.⁷ A lack of availability of race-concordant physicians or physicians with perceived cultural competence may deter patients with SOC from seeking help, which may be further prevalent in dermatologic practice.

Barriers at all levels of social determinants of health hinder access to health care. Patients with SOC experience greater housing insecurity, increased reliance on public transportation, more issues with health literacy, and limited English-language fluency.⁸ Combined, these factors equate to decreased access to health care resources and subsequently a lack of inclusion in case studies.

COVID-19 infection disproportionately affects patients with SOC,⁸ but there is a clear lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 dermatology literature. It is imperative to investigate factors that may contribute to this inequity. Recognizing skin manifestations can play a role in diagnosing COVID-19; increased awareness of its presentation in darker skin types may help bridge existing racial inequities. It is vital that physicians receive adequate resources and training to be able to recognize cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in all skin types. Finally, it is important to recognize that the lack of representation of SOC in the COVID-19 literature represents a larger trend that exists in dermatologic research that warrants further investigation and advocacy for inclusivity.

Scabies is caused by cutaneous ectoparasitic infection by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis. The infection is highly contagious via direct skin-to-skin contact or indirectly through infested bedding, clothing or fomites.^1,2 Scabies occurs at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and at all socioeconomic levels.¹ Analysis by the Global Burden of Disease estimates that 200 million individuals have been infected with scabies worldwide. The World Health Organization has declared scabies a neglected tropical disease.³

Crusted scabies is a severe and rare form of scabies, with hyperinfestation of thousands to millions of mites, and more commonly is associated with immunosuppressed states, including HIV and hematologic malignancies.^1,2,4 Crusted scabies has a high mortality rate due to sepsis when left untreated.^3,5

Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to the development of crusted scabies.^1,2 Iatrogenic immunosuppression leading to crusted scabies most commonly occurs secondary to immunosuppression after bone marrow or solid organ transplantation.⁶ Less often, crusted scabies is caused by iatrogenic immunosuppression from other clinical scenarios.^1,2

We describe a patient with iatrogenic immunosuppression due to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression for the treatment of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who developed crusted scabies that clinically presented as erythroderma. Crusted scabies should be included in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression, for timely and appropriate management.

Case Report

An 84-year-old man presented with worsening pruritus, erythema, and thick yellow scale that progressed to erythroderma over the last 2 weeks. He was diagnosed with GPA 6 months prior to presentation and was treated with azathioprine 150 mg/d, prednisone 10 mg/d, and sulfamethoxazole 800 mg plus trimethoprim 160 mg twice weekly for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.

Three weeks prior to presentation, the patient was hospitalized for pancytopenia attributed to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression (hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL [reference range, 13.5–18.0 g/dL]; hematocrit, 17.5% [reference range, 42%–52%]; white blood cell count, 1.66×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10³/μL]; platelet count, 146×10³/μL [reference range, 150–450×10³/μL]; absolute neutrophil count, 1.29×10³/μL [reference range, 1.4–6.5×10³/μL]). He was transferred to a skilled nursing facility after discharge and referred to dermatology for evaluation of the worsening pruritic rash.

At the current presentation, the patient denied close contact with anyone who had a similar rash at home or at the skilled nursing facility. Physical examination revealed diffuse erythroderma with yellow scale on the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs (Figure 1). The palms showed scattered 2- to 3-mm pustules. The mucosal surfaces did not have lesions. A punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm revealed focal spongiosis, parakeratosis, and acanthosis, as well as a perivascular and interstitial mixed inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils. Organisms morphologically compatible with scabies were found in the stratum corneum (Figure 2). Another punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm was performed for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) and was negative for immunoglobulin deposition. Mineral oil preparation from pustules on the palm was positive for mites.

The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% and oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg on day 1 and day 10. The prednisone dosage was increased from 10 mg/d to 50 mg/d and tapered over 2 weeks to treat the symptomatic rash and GPA. He remains on maintenance rituximab for GPA, without recurrence of scabies.

Comment

Pathogenesis—As an obligate parasite, S scabiei spends its entire life cycle within the host. Impregnated female mites burrow into the epidermis after mating and lay eggs daily for 1 to 2 months. Eggs hatch 2 or 3 days later. Larvae then migrate to the skin surface; burrow into the stratum corneum, where they mature into adults; and then mate on the skin surface.^1,4

Clinical Presentation and Sequelae—Typically, scabies presents 2 to 6 weeks after initial exposure with generalized and intense itching and inflammatory pruritic papules on the finger webs, wrists, elbows, axillae, buttocks, umbilicus, genitalia, and areolae.¹ Burrows are specific for scabies but may not always be present. Often, there are nonspecific secondary lesions, including excoriations, dermatitis, and impetiginization.

Complications of scabies can be severe, with initial colonization and infection of the skin resulting in impetigo and cellulitis. Systematic sequelae from local skin infection include post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, rheumatic fever, and sepsis. Mortality from sepsis in scabies can be high.^3,5

Classic Crusted Scabies and Other Variants—Crusted scabies presents with psoriasiform hyperkeratotic plaques involving the hands and feet with potential nail involvement that can become more generalized.¹ Alterations in CD4⁺ T-cell function have been implicated in the development of crusted scabies, in which an excessive helper T cell (T_H2) response is elicited against the ectoparasite, which may help explain the intense pruritus of scabies.⁶ Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to development of crusted scabies,¹ as was the case with our patient. However, it is rare for crusted scabies to present with erythroderma.⁷

Other atypical presentations of scabies include a seborrheic dermatitis–like presentation in infants, nodular lesions in the groin and axillae in more chronic scabies, and vesicles or bullous lesions.¹

Diagnosis—Identification of mites, eggs, or feces is necessary for definitive diagnosis of scabies.⁸ These materials can be obtained through skin scrapings with mineral oil and observed under light microscopy or direct dermoscopy. Multiple scrapings on many lesions should be performed because failure to identify mites can be common and does not rule out scabies. Dermoscopic examination of active lesions under low power also can be helpful, given that identification of dark brown triangular structures can correspond to visualization of the pigmented anterior section of the mite.^9-11 A skin biopsy can help identify mites, but histopathology often shows a nonspecific hypersensitivity reaction.¹² Therefore, empiric treatment often is necessary.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis of erythroderma is broad and includes a drug eruption; Sézary syndrome; and pre-existing skin diseases, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid. Histopathology is critical to differentiate these diagnoses. Bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus foliaceus are immunobullous diseases that typically are positive for immunoglobulin deposition on DIF. In rare cases, scabies also can present with bullae and positive DIF test results.¹³

Treatment—First-line treatment of crusted scabies in the United States is permethrin cream 5%, followed by oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg.^4,5,14,15 Other scabicides include topicals such as benzyl benzoate 10% to 25%; precipitated sulfur 2% to 10%; crotamiton 10%; malathion 0.5%; and lindane 1%.⁵ The association of neurotoxicity with lindane has considerably reduced the drug’s use.¹

During treatment of scabies, it is important to isolate patients to mitigate the possibility of spread.⁴ Pruritus can persist for a few weeks after completion of therapy.⁵ Patients should be closely monitored to ensure that this symptom is secondary to skin inflammation and not incomplete treatment.

Treatment of crusted scabies may require repeated treatments to decrease the notable mite burden as well as the associated crusting and scale. Adding a keratolytic such as 5% to 10% salicylic acid in petrolatum to the treatment regimen may be useful for breaking up thick scale.⁵

Immunosuppression—With numerous immunomodulatory drugs for treating autoimmunity comes an increased risk for iatrogenic immunosuppression that may contribute to the development of crusted scabies.¹⁶ In a number of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,^17-19 psoriasis,^20,21 pemphigus vulgaris,²² systemic lupus erythematosus,²³ systemic sclerosis,^22,24 bullous pemphigoid,^25,26 and dermatomyositis,²⁷ patients have developed crusted scabies secondary to treatment-related immunosuppression. These immunosuppressive therapies include systemic steroids,^22-24,26-31 methotrexate,²³ infliximab,¹⁸ adalimumab,²¹ toclizumab,¹⁹ and etanercept.²⁰ In a case of drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome, the patient developed crusted scabies during long-term use of oral steroids.²²

Patients with a malignancy who are being treated with chemotherapy also can develop crusted scabies.²⁸ Crusted scabies has even been associated with long-term topical steroid^32-34 and topical calcineurin inhibitor use.¹⁶

Iatrogenic immunosuppression in our patient resulted from treatment of GPA with azathioprine, an immunosuppressive drug that acts as an antagonist of the breakdown of purines, leading to inhibition of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis.³⁵ On occasion, azathioprine can induce immunosuppression in the form of myelosuppression and resulting pancytopenia, as was the case with our patient.

Conclusion

Although scabies is designated as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization, it still causes a notable burden worldwide, regardless of the economics. Our case highlights an unusual presentation of scabies as erythroderma in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression from azathioprine use. Dermatologists should consider crusted scabies in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in immunocompromised patients, to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment. Immunosuppressive therapy is an important mainstay in the treatment of many conditions, but it is important to consider that these medications can place patients at an increased risk for rare opportunistic infections. Therefore, patients receiving such treatment should be closely monitored.

Scabies is caused by cutaneous ectoparasitic infection by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis. The infection is highly contagious via direct skin-to-skin contact or indirectly through infested bedding, clothing or fomites.^1,2 Scabies occurs at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and at all socioeconomic levels.¹ Analysis by the Global Burden of Disease estimates that 200 million individuals have been infected with scabies worldwide. The World Health Organization has declared scabies a neglected tropical disease.³

Crusted scabies is a severe and rare form of scabies, with hyperinfestation of thousands to millions of mites, and more commonly is associated with immunosuppressed states, including HIV and hematologic malignancies.^1,2,4 Crusted scabies has a high mortality rate due to sepsis when left untreated.^3,5

Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to the development of crusted scabies.^1,2 Iatrogenic immunosuppression leading to crusted scabies most commonly occurs secondary to immunosuppression after bone marrow or solid organ transplantation.⁶ Less often, crusted scabies is caused by iatrogenic immunosuppression from other clinical scenarios.^1,2

We describe a patient with iatrogenic immunosuppression due to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression for the treatment of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who developed crusted scabies that clinically presented as erythroderma. Crusted scabies should be included in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression, for timely and appropriate management.

Case Report

An 84-year-old man presented with worsening pruritus, erythema, and thick yellow scale that progressed to erythroderma over the last 2 weeks. He was diagnosed with GPA 6 months prior to presentation and was treated with azathioprine 150 mg/d, prednisone 10 mg/d, and sulfamethoxazole 800 mg plus trimethoprim 160 mg twice weekly for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.

Three weeks prior to presentation, the patient was hospitalized for pancytopenia attributed to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression (hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL [reference range, 13.5–18.0 g/dL]; hematocrit, 17.5% [reference range, 42%–52%]; white blood cell count, 1.66×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10³/μL]; platelet count, 146×10³/μL [reference range, 150–450×10³/μL]; absolute neutrophil count, 1.29×10³/μL [reference range, 1.4–6.5×10³/μL]). He was transferred to a skilled nursing facility after discharge and referred to dermatology for evaluation of the worsening pruritic rash.

At the current presentation, the patient denied close contact with anyone who had a similar rash at home or at the skilled nursing facility. Physical examination revealed diffuse erythroderma with yellow scale on the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs (Figure 1). The palms showed scattered 2- to 3-mm pustules. The mucosal surfaces did not have lesions. A punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm revealed focal spongiosis, parakeratosis, and acanthosis, as well as a perivascular and interstitial mixed inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils. Organisms morphologically compatible with scabies were found in the stratum corneum (Figure 2). Another punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm was performed for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) and was negative for immunoglobulin deposition. Mineral oil preparation from pustules on the palm was positive for mites.

The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% and oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg on day 1 and day 10. The prednisone dosage was increased from 10 mg/d to 50 mg/d and tapered over 2 weeks to treat the symptomatic rash and GPA. He remains on maintenance rituximab for GPA, without recurrence of scabies.

Comment

Pathogenesis—As an obligate parasite, S scabiei spends its entire life cycle within the host. Impregnated female mites burrow into the epidermis after mating and lay eggs daily for 1 to 2 months. Eggs hatch 2 or 3 days later. Larvae then migrate to the skin surface; burrow into the stratum corneum, where they mature into adults; and then mate on the skin surface.^1,4

Clinical Presentation and Sequelae—Typically, scabies presents 2 to 6 weeks after initial exposure with generalized and intense itching and inflammatory pruritic papules on the finger webs, wrists, elbows, axillae, buttocks, umbilicus, genitalia, and areolae.¹ Burrows are specific for scabies but may not always be present. Often, there are nonspecific secondary lesions, including excoriations, dermatitis, and impetiginization.

Complications of scabies can be severe, with initial colonization and infection of the skin resulting in impetigo and cellulitis. Systematic sequelae from local skin infection include post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, rheumatic fever, and sepsis. Mortality from sepsis in scabies can be high.^3,5

Classic Crusted Scabies and Other Variants—Crusted scabies presents with psoriasiform hyperkeratotic plaques involving the hands and feet with potential nail involvement that can become more generalized.¹ Alterations in CD4⁺ T-cell function have been implicated in the development of crusted scabies, in which an excessive helper T cell (T_H2) response is elicited against the ectoparasite, which may help explain the intense pruritus of scabies.⁶ Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to development of crusted scabies,¹ as was the case with our patient. However, it is rare for crusted scabies to present with erythroderma.⁷

Other atypical presentations of scabies include a seborrheic dermatitis–like presentation in infants, nodular lesions in the groin and axillae in more chronic scabies, and vesicles or bullous lesions.¹

Diagnosis—Identification of mites, eggs, or feces is necessary for definitive diagnosis of scabies.⁸ These materials can be obtained through skin scrapings with mineral oil and observed under light microscopy or direct dermoscopy. Multiple scrapings on many lesions should be performed because failure to identify mites can be common and does not rule out scabies. Dermoscopic examination of active lesions under low power also can be helpful, given that identification of dark brown triangular structures can correspond to visualization of the pigmented anterior section of the mite.^9-11 A skin biopsy can help identify mites, but histopathology often shows a nonspecific hypersensitivity reaction.¹² Therefore, empiric treatment often is necessary.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis of erythroderma is broad and includes a drug eruption; Sézary syndrome; and pre-existing skin diseases, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid. Histopathology is critical to differentiate these diagnoses. Bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus foliaceus are immunobullous diseases that typically are positive for immunoglobulin deposition on DIF. In rare cases, scabies also can present with bullae and positive DIF test results.¹³

Treatment—First-line treatment of crusted scabies in the United States is permethrin cream 5%, followed by oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg.^4,5,14,15 Other scabicides include topicals such as benzyl benzoate 10% to 25%; precipitated sulfur 2% to 10%; crotamiton 10%; malathion 0.5%; and lindane 1%.⁵ The association of neurotoxicity with lindane has considerably reduced the drug’s use.¹

During treatment of scabies, it is important to isolate patients to mitigate the possibility of spread.⁴ Pruritus can persist for a few weeks after completion of therapy.⁵ Patients should be closely monitored to ensure that this symptom is secondary to skin inflammation and not incomplete treatment.

Treatment of crusted scabies may require repeated treatments to decrease the notable mite burden as well as the associated crusting and scale. Adding a keratolytic such as 5% to 10% salicylic acid in petrolatum to the treatment regimen may be useful for breaking up thick scale.⁵

Immunosuppression—With numerous immunomodulatory drugs for treating autoimmunity comes an increased risk for iatrogenic immunosuppression that may contribute to the development of crusted scabies.¹⁶ In a number of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,^17-19 psoriasis,^20,21 pemphigus vulgaris,²² systemic lupus erythematosus,²³ systemic sclerosis,^22,24 bullous pemphigoid,^25,26 and dermatomyositis,²⁷ patients have developed crusted scabies secondary to treatment-related immunosuppression. These immunosuppressive therapies include systemic steroids,^22-24,26-31 methotrexate,²³ infliximab,¹⁸ adalimumab,²¹ toclizumab,¹⁹ and etanercept.²⁰ In a case of drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome, the patient developed crusted scabies during long-term use of oral steroids.²²

Patients with a malignancy who are being treated with chemotherapy also can develop crusted scabies.²⁸ Crusted scabies has even been associated with long-term topical steroid^32-34 and topical calcineurin inhibitor use.¹⁶

Iatrogenic immunosuppression in our patient resulted from treatment of GPA with azathioprine, an immunosuppressive drug that acts as an antagonist of the breakdown of purines, leading to inhibition of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis.³⁵ On occasion, azathioprine can induce immunosuppression in the form of myelosuppression and resulting pancytopenia, as was the case with our patient.

Conclusion

Although scabies is designated as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization, it still causes a notable burden worldwide, regardless of the economics. Our case highlights an unusual presentation of scabies as erythroderma in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression from azathioprine use. Dermatologists should consider crusted scabies in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in immunocompromised patients, to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment. Immunosuppressive therapy is an important mainstay in the treatment of many conditions, but it is important to consider that these medications can place patients at an increased risk for rare opportunistic infections. Therefore, patients receiving such treatment should be closely monitored.

Scabies is caused by cutaneous ectoparasitic infection by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis. The infection is highly contagious via direct skin-to-skin contact or indirectly through infested bedding, clothing or fomites.^1,2 Scabies occurs at all ages, in all ethnic groups, and at all socioeconomic levels.¹ Analysis by the Global Burden of Disease estimates that 200 million individuals have been infected with scabies worldwide. The World Health Organization has declared scabies a neglected tropical disease.³

Crusted scabies is a severe and rare form of scabies, with hyperinfestation of thousands to millions of mites, and more commonly is associated with immunosuppressed states, including HIV and hematologic malignancies.^1,2,4 Crusted scabies has a high mortality rate due to sepsis when left untreated.^3,5

Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to the development of crusted scabies.^1,2 Iatrogenic immunosuppression leading to crusted scabies most commonly occurs secondary to immunosuppression after bone marrow or solid organ transplantation.⁶ Less often, crusted scabies is caused by iatrogenic immunosuppression from other clinical scenarios.^1,2

We describe a patient with iatrogenic immunosuppression due to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression for the treatment of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who developed crusted scabies that clinically presented as erythroderma. Crusted scabies should be included in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression, for timely and appropriate management.

Case Report

An 84-year-old man presented with worsening pruritus, erythema, and thick yellow scale that progressed to erythroderma over the last 2 weeks. He was diagnosed with GPA 6 months prior to presentation and was treated with azathioprine 150 mg/d, prednisone 10 mg/d, and sulfamethoxazole 800 mg plus trimethoprim 160 mg twice weekly for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.

Three weeks prior to presentation, the patient was hospitalized for pancytopenia attributed to azathioprine-induced myelosuppression (hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL [reference range, 13.5–18.0 g/dL]; hematocrit, 17.5% [reference range, 42%–52%]; white blood cell count, 1.66×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.5×10³/μL]; platelet count, 146×10³/μL [reference range, 150–450×10³/μL]; absolute neutrophil count, 1.29×10³/μL [reference range, 1.4–6.5×10³/μL]). He was transferred to a skilled nursing facility after discharge and referred to dermatology for evaluation of the worsening pruritic rash.

At the current presentation, the patient denied close contact with anyone who had a similar rash at home or at the skilled nursing facility. Physical examination revealed diffuse erythroderma with yellow scale on the scalp, trunk, arms, and legs (Figure 1). The palms showed scattered 2- to 3-mm pustules. The mucosal surfaces did not have lesions. A punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm revealed focal spongiosis, parakeratosis, and acanthosis, as well as a perivascular and interstitial mixed inflammatory infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils. Organisms morphologically compatible with scabies were found in the stratum corneum (Figure 2). Another punch biopsy of a pustule from the right arm was performed for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) and was negative for immunoglobulin deposition. Mineral oil preparation from pustules on the palm was positive for mites.

The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% and oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg on day 1 and day 10. The prednisone dosage was increased from 10 mg/d to 50 mg/d and tapered over 2 weeks to treat the symptomatic rash and GPA. He remains on maintenance rituximab for GPA, without recurrence of scabies.

Comment

Pathogenesis—As an obligate parasite, S scabiei spends its entire life cycle within the host. Impregnated female mites burrow into the epidermis after mating and lay eggs daily for 1 to 2 months. Eggs hatch 2 or 3 days later. Larvae then migrate to the skin surface; burrow into the stratum corneum, where they mature into adults; and then mate on the skin surface.^1,4

Clinical Presentation and Sequelae—Typically, scabies presents 2 to 6 weeks after initial exposure with generalized and intense itching and inflammatory pruritic papules on the finger webs, wrists, elbows, axillae, buttocks, umbilicus, genitalia, and areolae.¹ Burrows are specific for scabies but may not always be present. Often, there are nonspecific secondary lesions, including excoriations, dermatitis, and impetiginization.

Complications of scabies can be severe, with initial colonization and infection of the skin resulting in impetigo and cellulitis. Systematic sequelae from local skin infection include post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, rheumatic fever, and sepsis. Mortality from sepsis in scabies can be high.^3,5

Classic Crusted Scabies and Other Variants—Crusted scabies presents with psoriasiform hyperkeratotic plaques involving the hands and feet with potential nail involvement that can become more generalized.¹ Alterations in CD4⁺ T-cell function have been implicated in the development of crusted scabies, in which an excessive helper T cell (T_H2) response is elicited against the ectoparasite, which may help explain the intense pruritus of scabies.⁶ Occasionally, iatrogenic immunosuppression contributes to development of crusted scabies,¹ as was the case with our patient. However, it is rare for crusted scabies to present with erythroderma.⁷

Other atypical presentations of scabies include a seborrheic dermatitis–like presentation in infants, nodular lesions in the groin and axillae in more chronic scabies, and vesicles or bullous lesions.¹

Diagnosis—Identification of mites, eggs, or feces is necessary for definitive diagnosis of scabies.⁸ These materials can be obtained through skin scrapings with mineral oil and observed under light microscopy or direct dermoscopy. Multiple scrapings on many lesions should be performed because failure to identify mites can be common and does not rule out scabies. Dermoscopic examination of active lesions under low power also can be helpful, given that identification of dark brown triangular structures can correspond to visualization of the pigmented anterior section of the mite.^9-11 A skin biopsy can help identify mites, but histopathology often shows a nonspecific hypersensitivity reaction.¹² Therefore, empiric treatment often is necessary.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis of erythroderma is broad and includes a drug eruption; Sézary syndrome; and pre-existing skin diseases, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, pityriasis rubra pilaris, pemphigus foliaceus, and bullous pemphigoid. Histopathology is critical to differentiate these diagnoses. Bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus foliaceus are immunobullous diseases that typically are positive for immunoglobulin deposition on DIF. In rare cases, scabies also can present with bullae and positive DIF test results.¹³

Treatment—First-line treatment of crusted scabies in the United States is permethrin cream 5%, followed by oral ivermectin 200 μg/kg.^4,5,14,15 Other scabicides include topicals such as benzyl benzoate 10% to 25%; precipitated sulfur 2% to 10%; crotamiton 10%; malathion 0.5%; and lindane 1%.⁵ The association of neurotoxicity with lindane has considerably reduced the drug’s use.¹

During treatment of scabies, it is important to isolate patients to mitigate the possibility of spread.⁴ Pruritus can persist for a few weeks after completion of therapy.⁵ Patients should be closely monitored to ensure that this symptom is secondary to skin inflammation and not incomplete treatment.

Treatment of crusted scabies may require repeated treatments to decrease the notable mite burden as well as the associated crusting and scale. Adding a keratolytic such as 5% to 10% salicylic acid in petrolatum to the treatment regimen may be useful for breaking up thick scale.⁵

Immunosuppression—With numerous immunomodulatory drugs for treating autoimmunity comes an increased risk for iatrogenic immunosuppression that may contribute to the development of crusted scabies.¹⁶ In a number of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,^17-19 psoriasis,^20,21 pemphigus vulgaris,²² systemic lupus erythematosus,²³ systemic sclerosis,^22,24 bullous pemphigoid,^25,26 and dermatomyositis,²⁷ patients have developed crusted scabies secondary to treatment-related immunosuppression. These immunosuppressive therapies include systemic steroids,^22-24,26-31 methotrexate,²³ infliximab,¹⁸ adalimumab,²¹ toclizumab,¹⁹ and etanercept.²⁰ In a case of drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome, the patient developed crusted scabies during long-term use of oral steroids.²²

Patients with a malignancy who are being treated with chemotherapy also can develop crusted scabies.²⁸ Crusted scabies has even been associated with long-term topical steroid^32-34 and topical calcineurin inhibitor use.¹⁶

Iatrogenic immunosuppression in our patient resulted from treatment of GPA with azathioprine, an immunosuppressive drug that acts as an antagonist of the breakdown of purines, leading to inhibition of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis.³⁵ On occasion, azathioprine can induce immunosuppression in the form of myelosuppression and resulting pancytopenia, as was the case with our patient.

Conclusion

Although scabies is designated as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization, it still causes a notable burden worldwide, regardless of the economics. Our case highlights an unusual presentation of scabies as erythroderma in the setting of iatrogenic immunosuppression from azathioprine use. Dermatologists should consider crusted scabies in the differential diagnosis of erythroderma, especially in immunocompromised patients, to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment. Immunosuppressive therapy is an important mainstay in the treatment of many conditions, but it is important to consider that these medications can place patients at an increased risk for rare opportunistic infections. Therefore, patients receiving such treatment should be closely monitored.