User login
Diagnosis by dog: Canines detect COVID in schoolchildren with no symptoms
Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.
Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.
The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.
“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
In the lab and in the field
In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.
In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.
Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.
Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.
Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.
As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.
Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.
According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”
Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.
Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.
Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.
The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.
“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
In the lab and in the field
In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.
In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.
Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.
Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.
Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.
As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.
Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.
According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”
Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.
Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.
Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.
The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.
“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
In the lab and in the field
In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.
In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.
Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.
Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.
Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.
As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.
Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.
According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”
Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Long COVID mobile monitoring study hunts for answers
A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.
The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.
The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.
The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors.
Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.
For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said.
But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.
So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.
The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people.
The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year.
In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.
Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.
“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”
Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one.
Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”
Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.
Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems.
“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “
In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous.
DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.
Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.
“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said.
The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.
The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.
The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.
The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors.
Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.
For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said.
But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.
So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.
The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people.
The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year.
In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.
Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.
“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”
Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one.
Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”
Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.
Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems.
“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “
In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous.
DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.
Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.
“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said.
The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.
The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.
The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.
The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors.
Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.
For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said.
But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.
So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.
The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people.
The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year.
In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.
Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.
“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”
Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one.
Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”
Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.
Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems.
“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “
In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous.
DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.
Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.
“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said.
The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Dried blood spot test validated for HIV, hep B, and hep C
A test that uses a single drop of dried blood to detect HIV, hepatitis B virus, and HCV has been validated and is now in use in some high-risk settings in Denmark, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
Molecular biologist Stephen Nilsson-Møller, MSc, and colleagues at the department of clinical microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, developed and validated the test, known as the Dried Blood Spot (DBS), for HIV, HBV, and HCV.
The “test that can detect low viral loads for all three viruses from a single drop of blood, and can be done using existing hospital equipment,” Mr. Nilsson-Møller said in an interview. “Importantly, it does not require venipuncture, but can be done from a drop of dried blood from the finger.”
He highlighted the utility of the new test in more challenging settings. “This method is particularly useful in high-risk settings such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, and prisons, where needles might be misused, and it can be difficult to convince people to have the more invasive test.”
“Also, in some places – such as in low- and middle-income settings – there is a distinct risk of ruining blood samples before analysis due to limited refrigeration for transit and storage,” he added. “[Standard] blood samples need to be analyzed within 6 hours when kept at room temperature, while dried blood spots can last for 9 months at room temperature and can be mailed to a laboratory with the right equipment to analyze it.”
Tiny amounts of virus detected
Mr. Nilsson-Møller was tasked with developing a test for use by the university’s department of infectious diseases to screen people in high-risk settings in the capital region of Copenhagen. The work forms part of a PhD project by Jonas Demant at the University of Copenhagen, for which he is screening for HIV, HBV, and HCV in drug rehabilitation centers, prisons, and homeless shelters.
The study is the first to use the Hologic Panther system (a nucleic acid amplification test) combining all three viruses, Mr. Nilsson-Møller pointed out. “A tiny amount of virus can be detected because it is a very sensitive platform using transcription-mediated amplification.”
“If it detects low amounts of virus, it will create many copies very quickly, creating a signal that tells us that the sample is positive,” he explained.
The researchers collected whole blood from a finger prick, dried it out on a protein saver card (filter paper), and cut out a 1.2-cm diameter dry blood spot which was then prepared for analysis.
Twenty blood samples with known amounts of HIV, HBV, and HCV were analyzed via the DBS method (60 in total) and the viruses were detected in all of the samples.
To validate the method, the researchers used plasma with a known viral load, and a series of dilutions were performed to determine the lower limit for positive detection of all three viruses.
“Untreated patients typically have above 1 million IU/mL of viral loads in their plasma, and we found that we can detect much lower levels,” said Mr. Nilsson-Møller. “Ideally, 40 mcL of blood is good, but less should be sufficient if the test is on untreated patients.”
Early testing and treatment reduces morbidity and mortality
Elimination of HBV, HCV, and HIV by 2030 is a global health strategy set by the World Health Organization, but to meet this goal, new approaches for diagnostic testing are required. The DBS test for HIV, HBV, and HCV promises to make a significant contribution toward this goal.
“One in two people currently living with HIV is diagnosed late in the course of their infection, and an even larger proportion of the estimated 6 million Europeans living with chronic hepatitis B or C are not aware that they are infected,” said Anastasia Pharris, PhD, from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control Principal Expert Infectious Diseases.
“Increasing testing coverage and uptake, especially for those most at risk, is an essential element of any strategy to eliminate HBV, HCV, and HIV in the European Union and European Economic Area,” she pointed out.
Dr. Pharris also highlighted that, while HIV, and often HBV infection, require lifelong treatment, HCV infection is now curable within a few weeks. “To maximize the benefits of individual treatment for all three infections, it is critical to test and diagnose people as soon as possible – in itself a challenge given that these infections can typically be asymptomatic for years.
“Early diagnosis of HBV, HCV, or HIV is vital as it allows people to access treatment, which significantly reduces associated long-term morbidity and mortality.
“In many cases, those most at risk of one of these infections are also more vulnerable to infection with one or both of the other viruses, making the argument for integrated testing even stronger,” she said in an interview.
Mr. Nilsson-Møller and Dr. Pharris reported no relevant financial relationships. Aptima kits for validation were provided by Hologic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A test that uses a single drop of dried blood to detect HIV, hepatitis B virus, and HCV has been validated and is now in use in some high-risk settings in Denmark, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
Molecular biologist Stephen Nilsson-Møller, MSc, and colleagues at the department of clinical microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, developed and validated the test, known as the Dried Blood Spot (DBS), for HIV, HBV, and HCV.
The “test that can detect low viral loads for all three viruses from a single drop of blood, and can be done using existing hospital equipment,” Mr. Nilsson-Møller said in an interview. “Importantly, it does not require venipuncture, but can be done from a drop of dried blood from the finger.”
He highlighted the utility of the new test in more challenging settings. “This method is particularly useful in high-risk settings such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, and prisons, where needles might be misused, and it can be difficult to convince people to have the more invasive test.”
“Also, in some places – such as in low- and middle-income settings – there is a distinct risk of ruining blood samples before analysis due to limited refrigeration for transit and storage,” he added. “[Standard] blood samples need to be analyzed within 6 hours when kept at room temperature, while dried blood spots can last for 9 months at room temperature and can be mailed to a laboratory with the right equipment to analyze it.”
Tiny amounts of virus detected
Mr. Nilsson-Møller was tasked with developing a test for use by the university’s department of infectious diseases to screen people in high-risk settings in the capital region of Copenhagen. The work forms part of a PhD project by Jonas Demant at the University of Copenhagen, for which he is screening for HIV, HBV, and HCV in drug rehabilitation centers, prisons, and homeless shelters.
The study is the first to use the Hologic Panther system (a nucleic acid amplification test) combining all three viruses, Mr. Nilsson-Møller pointed out. “A tiny amount of virus can be detected because it is a very sensitive platform using transcription-mediated amplification.”
“If it detects low amounts of virus, it will create many copies very quickly, creating a signal that tells us that the sample is positive,” he explained.
The researchers collected whole blood from a finger prick, dried it out on a protein saver card (filter paper), and cut out a 1.2-cm diameter dry blood spot which was then prepared for analysis.
Twenty blood samples with known amounts of HIV, HBV, and HCV were analyzed via the DBS method (60 in total) and the viruses were detected in all of the samples.
To validate the method, the researchers used plasma with a known viral load, and a series of dilutions were performed to determine the lower limit for positive detection of all three viruses.
“Untreated patients typically have above 1 million IU/mL of viral loads in their plasma, and we found that we can detect much lower levels,” said Mr. Nilsson-Møller. “Ideally, 40 mcL of blood is good, but less should be sufficient if the test is on untreated patients.”
Early testing and treatment reduces morbidity and mortality
Elimination of HBV, HCV, and HIV by 2030 is a global health strategy set by the World Health Organization, but to meet this goal, new approaches for diagnostic testing are required. The DBS test for HIV, HBV, and HCV promises to make a significant contribution toward this goal.
“One in two people currently living with HIV is diagnosed late in the course of their infection, and an even larger proportion of the estimated 6 million Europeans living with chronic hepatitis B or C are not aware that they are infected,” said Anastasia Pharris, PhD, from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control Principal Expert Infectious Diseases.
“Increasing testing coverage and uptake, especially for those most at risk, is an essential element of any strategy to eliminate HBV, HCV, and HIV in the European Union and European Economic Area,” she pointed out.
Dr. Pharris also highlighted that, while HIV, and often HBV infection, require lifelong treatment, HCV infection is now curable within a few weeks. “To maximize the benefits of individual treatment for all three infections, it is critical to test and diagnose people as soon as possible – in itself a challenge given that these infections can typically be asymptomatic for years.
“Early diagnosis of HBV, HCV, or HIV is vital as it allows people to access treatment, which significantly reduces associated long-term morbidity and mortality.
“In many cases, those most at risk of one of these infections are also more vulnerable to infection with one or both of the other viruses, making the argument for integrated testing even stronger,” she said in an interview.
Mr. Nilsson-Møller and Dr. Pharris reported no relevant financial relationships. Aptima kits for validation were provided by Hologic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A test that uses a single drop of dried blood to detect HIV, hepatitis B virus, and HCV has been validated and is now in use in some high-risk settings in Denmark, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
Molecular biologist Stephen Nilsson-Møller, MSc, and colleagues at the department of clinical microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, developed and validated the test, known as the Dried Blood Spot (DBS), for HIV, HBV, and HCV.
The “test that can detect low viral loads for all three viruses from a single drop of blood, and can be done using existing hospital equipment,” Mr. Nilsson-Møller said in an interview. “Importantly, it does not require venipuncture, but can be done from a drop of dried blood from the finger.”
He highlighted the utility of the new test in more challenging settings. “This method is particularly useful in high-risk settings such as homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, and prisons, where needles might be misused, and it can be difficult to convince people to have the more invasive test.”
“Also, in some places – such as in low- and middle-income settings – there is a distinct risk of ruining blood samples before analysis due to limited refrigeration for transit and storage,” he added. “[Standard] blood samples need to be analyzed within 6 hours when kept at room temperature, while dried blood spots can last for 9 months at room temperature and can be mailed to a laboratory with the right equipment to analyze it.”
Tiny amounts of virus detected
Mr. Nilsson-Møller was tasked with developing a test for use by the university’s department of infectious diseases to screen people in high-risk settings in the capital region of Copenhagen. The work forms part of a PhD project by Jonas Demant at the University of Copenhagen, for which he is screening for HIV, HBV, and HCV in drug rehabilitation centers, prisons, and homeless shelters.
The study is the first to use the Hologic Panther system (a nucleic acid amplification test) combining all three viruses, Mr. Nilsson-Møller pointed out. “A tiny amount of virus can be detected because it is a very sensitive platform using transcription-mediated amplification.”
“If it detects low amounts of virus, it will create many copies very quickly, creating a signal that tells us that the sample is positive,” he explained.
The researchers collected whole blood from a finger prick, dried it out on a protein saver card (filter paper), and cut out a 1.2-cm diameter dry blood spot which was then prepared for analysis.
Twenty blood samples with known amounts of HIV, HBV, and HCV were analyzed via the DBS method (60 in total) and the viruses were detected in all of the samples.
To validate the method, the researchers used plasma with a known viral load, and a series of dilutions were performed to determine the lower limit for positive detection of all three viruses.
“Untreated patients typically have above 1 million IU/mL of viral loads in their plasma, and we found that we can detect much lower levels,” said Mr. Nilsson-Møller. “Ideally, 40 mcL of blood is good, but less should be sufficient if the test is on untreated patients.”
Early testing and treatment reduces morbidity and mortality
Elimination of HBV, HCV, and HIV by 2030 is a global health strategy set by the World Health Organization, but to meet this goal, new approaches for diagnostic testing are required. The DBS test for HIV, HBV, and HCV promises to make a significant contribution toward this goal.
“One in two people currently living with HIV is diagnosed late in the course of their infection, and an even larger proportion of the estimated 6 million Europeans living with chronic hepatitis B or C are not aware that they are infected,” said Anastasia Pharris, PhD, from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control Principal Expert Infectious Diseases.
“Increasing testing coverage and uptake, especially for those most at risk, is an essential element of any strategy to eliminate HBV, HCV, and HIV in the European Union and European Economic Area,” she pointed out.
Dr. Pharris also highlighted that, while HIV, and often HBV infection, require lifelong treatment, HCV infection is now curable within a few weeks. “To maximize the benefits of individual treatment for all three infections, it is critical to test and diagnose people as soon as possible – in itself a challenge given that these infections can typically be asymptomatic for years.
“Early diagnosis of HBV, HCV, or HIV is vital as it allows people to access treatment, which significantly reduces associated long-term morbidity and mortality.
“In many cases, those most at risk of one of these infections are also more vulnerable to infection with one or both of the other viruses, making the argument for integrated testing even stronger,” she said in an interview.
Mr. Nilsson-Møller and Dr. Pharris reported no relevant financial relationships. Aptima kits for validation were provided by Hologic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECCMID 2023
Are delayed antibiotic prescriptions futile?
I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).
However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.
Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.
HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:
Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.
Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.
Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.
In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).
However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.
Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.
HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:
Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.
Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.
Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.
In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).
However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.
Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.
HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:
Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.
Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.
Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.
In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC backs FDA’s call for second COVID booster for those at high risk
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.
“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.
The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.
But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.
The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.
People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.
Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.
If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”
The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.
The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs
The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.
For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.
All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.
For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.
ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.
“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.
“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.
Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
New vaccine by fall
CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.
“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.
“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .
Rabies: How to respond to parents’ questions
When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.
Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.
Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.
However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.
Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.
1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?
Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.
Healthy dog:
1. Observe for 10 days.
2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.
Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:
1. Begin PEP.
2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.
Dog unavailable:
Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.
2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?
Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.
In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).
For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.
3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?
Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.
PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.
4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?
While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.
You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.
As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.
Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.
Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.
However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.
Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.
1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?
Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.
Healthy dog:
1. Observe for 10 days.
2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.
Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:
1. Begin PEP.
2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.
Dog unavailable:
Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.
2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?
Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.
In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).
For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.
3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?
Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.
PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.
4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?
While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.
You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.
As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.
Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.
Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.
However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.
Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.
1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?
Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.
Healthy dog:
1. Observe for 10 days.
2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.
Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:
1. Begin PEP.
2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.
Dog unavailable:
Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.
2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?
Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.
In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).
For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.
3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?
Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.
PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.
4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?
While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.
You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.
As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
Perinatal HIV nearly eradicated in U.S.
, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.
The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.
Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.
Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.
“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.
The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.
“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said.
Disparities persist
But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”
Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.
Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.
Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.
“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
Progress in ‘danger’
Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.
Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.
“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.
“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.
The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.
Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.
Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.
“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.
The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.
“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said.
Disparities persist
But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”
Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.
Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.
Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.
“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
Progress in ‘danger’
Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.
Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.
“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.
“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.
The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.
Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.
Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.
“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.
The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.
“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said.
Disparities persist
But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”
Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.
Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.
Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.
“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
Progress in ‘danger’
Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.
Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.
“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.
“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New variant jumps to second place on COVID list
Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.
Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.
“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.
Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.
“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”
More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.
Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.
“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.
Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.
“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”
More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.
Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.
“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.
Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.
“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”
More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
U.S. syphilis cases reach 70-year high
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cancer, heart disease vaccines may be ready by 2030, Moderna says
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.
“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.
The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.
Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.
“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said.
The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.
In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.