Vaccines

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”

Study results

The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).

The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.

The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
 

Expert commentary

This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”

The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”

The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.

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

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”

We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.

News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.

Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.

Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.

As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.

Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.

As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.

Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)

In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.

Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.

We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.

The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.

The conclusion? Vaccinate the elderly (and some middle-aged too, if possible) and the frail as soon as possible with any version of the booster you have available, if you want to keep hospital pressure to the minimum and save a fair number of complications and deaths over the next months. This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.

Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Brent called his dad, Jeb Teichman, MD, in November 2019 saying he had felt sick for the past 3 days. The otherwise-healthy 29-year-old had a cough, sore throat, and was running a fever.

“It was what the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would call classic influenza-like illness,” Dr. Teichman said. “It was too late to start antivirals, so I gave him advice on symptomatic treatment. We texted the next day, and I was glad to hear that his fever was trending down and that he was feeling a little bit better.”

Two days later, his son called again. 

“He said he was having trouble breathing, and over the phone I could hear him hyperventilating.” The retired pediatrician and health care executive told his son to seek medical care. 

“Then I got the call that no parent wants to get.” 

Brent’s cousin Jake called saying he couldn’t wake Brent up.

“I called Jake back a few minutes later and asked him to hold up the phone,” Dr. Teichman said. “I listened to EMS working on my son, calling for round after round of many medications. He was in arrest and they couldn’t revive him.”

“To this day when I close my eyes at night, I still hear the beeping of those monitors.”

Brent had no health conditions to put him at higher risk for complications of the flu. “Brent was a wonderful son, brother, uncle, and friend. He had a passion for everything he did, and that included his chosen calling of the culinary arts but also included University of Kentucky sports,” Dr. Teichman said.

Brent planned to get a flu vaccine but had not done it yet. “In his obituary, we requested that, in lieu of flowers or donations, people go get their flu shot,” Dr. Teichman said.

“I’m here today to put a face on influenza,” Dr. Teichman said at a news briefing Oct. 4 on preventing the flu and pneumococcal disease, sponsored by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
 

New survey numbers ‘alarming’

The NFID commissioned a national survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults to better understand their knowledge and attitudes about the flu, pneumococcal disease, vaccines, and the impact of COVID-19.

“We were alarmed to learn that only 49% of U.S. adults plan to get their flu vaccine this season,” said Patricia A. “Patsy” Stinchfield, a registered nurse, NFID president, and moderator of the news briefing. “That is not good enough.”

In addition, 22% of people at higher risk for flu-related complications do not plan to get vaccinated this season. “That’s a dangerous risk to take,” Ms. Stinchfield said. 

An encouraging finding, she said, is that 69% of adults surveyed recognize that an annual flu vaccination is the best way to prevent flu-related hospitalizations and death. 

“So, most people know what to do. We just need to do it,” she said.

The top reason for not getting a flu shot in 2022 mentioned by 41% of people surveyed, is they do not think vaccines work very well. Another 39% are concerned about vaccine side effects, and 28% skip the vaccine because they “never get the flu.” 

The experts on the panel emphasized the recommendation that all Americans 6 months or older get the flu vaccine, preferably by the end of October. Vaccination is especially important for those at higher risk of complications from the flu, including children under 5, pregnant women, people with one or more health conditions, the immunocompromised, and Americans 65 years and older. 

Ms. Stinchfield acknowledged that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies season to season, but even if the vaccine does not completely match the circulating viruses, it can help prevent serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. One of the serious potential complications is pneumonia or “pneumococcal disease.” 

“Our survey shows that only 29% of those at risk have been advised to receive a pneumococcal vaccine,” Ms. Stinchfield said. “The good news is that, among those who were advised to get the vaccine, 74% did receive their pneumococcal vaccine,” she said. “This underscores a key point to you, my fellow clinicians: As health professionals, our recommendations matter.”
 

Higher doses for 65+ Americans

The CDC updated recommendations this flu season for adults 65 and older to receive one of three preferentially recommended flu vaccines, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD. The CDC is recommending higher-dose, stronger vaccines for older Americans “based on a review of the available studies, which suggested that in this age group, these vaccines are potentially more effective than standard-dose ... vaccines.”

During most seasons, people 65 and older bear the greatest burden of severe flu disease, accounting for most flu-related hospitalizations and deaths. 

“They are the largest vulnerable segment of our society,” Dr. Walensky said. 
 

What will this flu season be like?

Health officials in the flu vaccine business also tend to be in the flu season prediction business. That includes Dr. Walensky.

“While we will never exactly know what each flu season will hold, we do know that every year, the best way you can protect yourself and those around you is to get your annual flu vaccine,” she said while taking part remotely in the briefing. 

How severe will the flu season be in 2022-23? William Schaffner, MD, said he gets that question a lot. “Don’t think about that. Just focus on the fact that flu will be with us each year.

“We were a little bit spoiled. We’ve had two mild influenza seasons,” said Dr. Schaffner, medical director of NFID and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “I think with all the interest in COVID, people have rather forgotten about influenza. I’ve had to remind them that this is yet another serious winter respiratory virus. 

“As I like to say, flu is fickle. It’s difficult to predict how serious this next outbreak of influenza this season is going to be. We could look at what happened in the Southern Hemisphere,” he said. 

For example, Australia had the worst influenza season in the past 5 years, Schaffner said. “If you want a hint of what might happen here and you want yet another reason to be vaccinated, there it is.”

What we do know, Dr. Walensky said, is that the timing and severity of the past two flu seasons in the U.S. have been different than typical flu seasons. “And this is likely due to the COVID mitigation measures and other changes in circulating respiratory viruses.” Also, although last flu season was “relatively mild,” there was more flu activity than in the prior, 2020-21 season. 

Also, Dr. Walensky said, last season’s flu cases began to increase in November and remained elevated until mid-June, “making it the latest season on record.”

The official cause of Brent Teichman’s death was multilobar pneumonia, cause undetermined. “But after 30-plus years as a pediatrician ... I know influenza when I see it,” Dr. Teichman said.

“There’s a hole in our hearts that will never heal. Loss of a child is devastating,” he said. The flu “can take the life of a healthy young person, as it did to my son.

“And for all those listening to my story who are vaccine hesitant, do it for those who love you. So that they won’t walk the path that we and many other families in this country have walked.”

To prove their point, Dr. Teichman and Ms. Stinchfield raised their sleeves and received flu shots during the news briefing. 

“This one is for Brent,” Dr. Teichman said.

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

Brent called his dad, Jeb Teichman, MD, in November 2019 saying he had felt sick for the past 3 days. The otherwise-healthy 29-year-old had a cough, sore throat, and was running a fever.

“It was what the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would call classic influenza-like illness,” Dr. Teichman said. “It was too late to start antivirals, so I gave him advice on symptomatic treatment. We texted the next day, and I was glad to hear that his fever was trending down and that he was feeling a little bit better.”

Two days later, his son called again. 

“He said he was having trouble breathing, and over the phone I could hear him hyperventilating.” The retired pediatrician and health care executive told his son to seek medical care. 

“Then I got the call that no parent wants to get.” 

Brent’s cousin Jake called saying he couldn’t wake Brent up.

“I called Jake back a few minutes later and asked him to hold up the phone,” Dr. Teichman said. “I listened to EMS working on my son, calling for round after round of many medications. He was in arrest and they couldn’t revive him.”

“To this day when I close my eyes at night, I still hear the beeping of those monitors.”

Brent had no health conditions to put him at higher risk for complications of the flu. “Brent was a wonderful son, brother, uncle, and friend. He had a passion for everything he did, and that included his chosen calling of the culinary arts but also included University of Kentucky sports,” Dr. Teichman said.

Brent planned to get a flu vaccine but had not done it yet. “In his obituary, we requested that, in lieu of flowers or donations, people go get their flu shot,” Dr. Teichman said.

“I’m here today to put a face on influenza,” Dr. Teichman said at a news briefing Oct. 4 on preventing the flu and pneumococcal disease, sponsored by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
 

New survey numbers ‘alarming’

The NFID commissioned a national survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults to better understand their knowledge and attitudes about the flu, pneumococcal disease, vaccines, and the impact of COVID-19.

“We were alarmed to learn that only 49% of U.S. adults plan to get their flu vaccine this season,” said Patricia A. “Patsy” Stinchfield, a registered nurse, NFID president, and moderator of the news briefing. “That is not good enough.”

In addition, 22% of people at higher risk for flu-related complications do not plan to get vaccinated this season. “That’s a dangerous risk to take,” Ms. Stinchfield said. 

An encouraging finding, she said, is that 69% of adults surveyed recognize that an annual flu vaccination is the best way to prevent flu-related hospitalizations and death. 

“So, most people know what to do. We just need to do it,” she said.

The top reason for not getting a flu shot in 2022 mentioned by 41% of people surveyed, is they do not think vaccines work very well. Another 39% are concerned about vaccine side effects, and 28% skip the vaccine because they “never get the flu.” 

The experts on the panel emphasized the recommendation that all Americans 6 months or older get the flu vaccine, preferably by the end of October. Vaccination is especially important for those at higher risk of complications from the flu, including children under 5, pregnant women, people with one or more health conditions, the immunocompromised, and Americans 65 years and older. 

Ms. Stinchfield acknowledged that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies season to season, but even if the vaccine does not completely match the circulating viruses, it can help prevent serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. One of the serious potential complications is pneumonia or “pneumococcal disease.” 

“Our survey shows that only 29% of those at risk have been advised to receive a pneumococcal vaccine,” Ms. Stinchfield said. “The good news is that, among those who were advised to get the vaccine, 74% did receive their pneumococcal vaccine,” she said. “This underscores a key point to you, my fellow clinicians: As health professionals, our recommendations matter.”
 

Higher doses for 65+ Americans

The CDC updated recommendations this flu season for adults 65 and older to receive one of three preferentially recommended flu vaccines, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD. The CDC is recommending higher-dose, stronger vaccines for older Americans “based on a review of the available studies, which suggested that in this age group, these vaccines are potentially more effective than standard-dose ... vaccines.”

During most seasons, people 65 and older bear the greatest burden of severe flu disease, accounting for most flu-related hospitalizations and deaths. 

“They are the largest vulnerable segment of our society,” Dr. Walensky said. 
 

What will this flu season be like?

Health officials in the flu vaccine business also tend to be in the flu season prediction business. That includes Dr. Walensky.

“While we will never exactly know what each flu season will hold, we do know that every year, the best way you can protect yourself and those around you is to get your annual flu vaccine,” she said while taking part remotely in the briefing. 

How severe will the flu season be in 2022-23? William Schaffner, MD, said he gets that question a lot. “Don’t think about that. Just focus on the fact that flu will be with us each year.

“We were a little bit spoiled. We’ve had two mild influenza seasons,” said Dr. Schaffner, medical director of NFID and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “I think with all the interest in COVID, people have rather forgotten about influenza. I’ve had to remind them that this is yet another serious winter respiratory virus. 

“As I like to say, flu is fickle. It’s difficult to predict how serious this next outbreak of influenza this season is going to be. We could look at what happened in the Southern Hemisphere,” he said. 

For example, Australia had the worst influenza season in the past 5 years, Schaffner said. “If you want a hint of what might happen here and you want yet another reason to be vaccinated, there it is.”

What we do know, Dr. Walensky said, is that the timing and severity of the past two flu seasons in the U.S. have been different than typical flu seasons. “And this is likely due to the COVID mitigation measures and other changes in circulating respiratory viruses.” Also, although last flu season was “relatively mild,” there was more flu activity than in the prior, 2020-21 season. 

Also, Dr. Walensky said, last season’s flu cases began to increase in November and remained elevated until mid-June, “making it the latest season on record.”

The official cause of Brent Teichman’s death was multilobar pneumonia, cause undetermined. “But after 30-plus years as a pediatrician ... I know influenza when I see it,” Dr. Teichman said.

“There’s a hole in our hearts that will never heal. Loss of a child is devastating,” he said. The flu “can take the life of a healthy young person, as it did to my son.

“And for all those listening to my story who are vaccine hesitant, do it for those who love you. So that they won’t walk the path that we and many other families in this country have walked.”

To prove their point, Dr. Teichman and Ms. Stinchfield raised their sleeves and received flu shots during the news briefing. 

“This one is for Brent,” Dr. Teichman said.

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

Brent called his dad, Jeb Teichman, MD, in November 2019 saying he had felt sick for the past 3 days. The otherwise-healthy 29-year-old had a cough, sore throat, and was running a fever.

“It was what the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would call classic influenza-like illness,” Dr. Teichman said. “It was too late to start antivirals, so I gave him advice on symptomatic treatment. We texted the next day, and I was glad to hear that his fever was trending down and that he was feeling a little bit better.”

Two days later, his son called again. 

“He said he was having trouble breathing, and over the phone I could hear him hyperventilating.” The retired pediatrician and health care executive told his son to seek medical care. 

“Then I got the call that no parent wants to get.” 

Brent’s cousin Jake called saying he couldn’t wake Brent up.

“I called Jake back a few minutes later and asked him to hold up the phone,” Dr. Teichman said. “I listened to EMS working on my son, calling for round after round of many medications. He was in arrest and they couldn’t revive him.”

“To this day when I close my eyes at night, I still hear the beeping of those monitors.”

Brent had no health conditions to put him at higher risk for complications of the flu. “Brent was a wonderful son, brother, uncle, and friend. He had a passion for everything he did, and that included his chosen calling of the culinary arts but also included University of Kentucky sports,” Dr. Teichman said.

Brent planned to get a flu vaccine but had not done it yet. “In his obituary, we requested that, in lieu of flowers or donations, people go get their flu shot,” Dr. Teichman said.

“I’m here today to put a face on influenza,” Dr. Teichman said at a news briefing Oct. 4 on preventing the flu and pneumococcal disease, sponsored by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.
 

New survey numbers ‘alarming’

The NFID commissioned a national survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults to better understand their knowledge and attitudes about the flu, pneumococcal disease, vaccines, and the impact of COVID-19.

“We were alarmed to learn that only 49% of U.S. adults plan to get their flu vaccine this season,” said Patricia A. “Patsy” Stinchfield, a registered nurse, NFID president, and moderator of the news briefing. “That is not good enough.”

In addition, 22% of people at higher risk for flu-related complications do not plan to get vaccinated this season. “That’s a dangerous risk to take,” Ms. Stinchfield said. 

An encouraging finding, she said, is that 69% of adults surveyed recognize that an annual flu vaccination is the best way to prevent flu-related hospitalizations and death. 

“So, most people know what to do. We just need to do it,” she said.

The top reason for not getting a flu shot in 2022 mentioned by 41% of people surveyed, is they do not think vaccines work very well. Another 39% are concerned about vaccine side effects, and 28% skip the vaccine because they “never get the flu.” 

The experts on the panel emphasized the recommendation that all Americans 6 months or older get the flu vaccine, preferably by the end of October. Vaccination is especially important for those at higher risk of complications from the flu, including children under 5, pregnant women, people with one or more health conditions, the immunocompromised, and Americans 65 years and older. 

Ms. Stinchfield acknowledged that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies season to season, but even if the vaccine does not completely match the circulating viruses, it can help prevent serious outcomes like hospitalization and death. One of the serious potential complications is pneumonia or “pneumococcal disease.” 

“Our survey shows that only 29% of those at risk have been advised to receive a pneumococcal vaccine,” Ms. Stinchfield said. “The good news is that, among those who were advised to get the vaccine, 74% did receive their pneumococcal vaccine,” she said. “This underscores a key point to you, my fellow clinicians: As health professionals, our recommendations matter.”
 

Higher doses for 65+ Americans

The CDC updated recommendations this flu season for adults 65 and older to receive one of three preferentially recommended flu vaccines, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD. The CDC is recommending higher-dose, stronger vaccines for older Americans “based on a review of the available studies, which suggested that in this age group, these vaccines are potentially more effective than standard-dose ... vaccines.”

During most seasons, people 65 and older bear the greatest burden of severe flu disease, accounting for most flu-related hospitalizations and deaths. 

“They are the largest vulnerable segment of our society,” Dr. Walensky said. 
 

What will this flu season be like?

Health officials in the flu vaccine business also tend to be in the flu season prediction business. That includes Dr. Walensky.

“While we will never exactly know what each flu season will hold, we do know that every year, the best way you can protect yourself and those around you is to get your annual flu vaccine,” she said while taking part remotely in the briefing. 

How severe will the flu season be in 2022-23? William Schaffner, MD, said he gets that question a lot. “Don’t think about that. Just focus on the fact that flu will be with us each year.

“We were a little bit spoiled. We’ve had two mild influenza seasons,” said Dr. Schaffner, medical director of NFID and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “I think with all the interest in COVID, people have rather forgotten about influenza. I’ve had to remind them that this is yet another serious winter respiratory virus. 

“As I like to say, flu is fickle. It’s difficult to predict how serious this next outbreak of influenza this season is going to be. We could look at what happened in the Southern Hemisphere,” he said. 

For example, Australia had the worst influenza season in the past 5 years, Schaffner said. “If you want a hint of what might happen here and you want yet another reason to be vaccinated, there it is.”

What we do know, Dr. Walensky said, is that the timing and severity of the past two flu seasons in the U.S. have been different than typical flu seasons. “And this is likely due to the COVID mitigation measures and other changes in circulating respiratory viruses.” Also, although last flu season was “relatively mild,” there was more flu activity than in the prior, 2020-21 season. 

Also, Dr. Walensky said, last season’s flu cases began to increase in November and remained elevated until mid-June, “making it the latest season on record.”

The official cause of Brent Teichman’s death was multilobar pneumonia, cause undetermined. “But after 30-plus years as a pediatrician ... I know influenza when I see it,” Dr. Teichman said.

“There’s a hole in our hearts that will never heal. Loss of a child is devastating,” he said. The flu “can take the life of a healthy young person, as it did to my son.

“And for all those listening to my story who are vaccine hesitant, do it for those who love you. So that they won’t walk the path that we and many other families in this country have walked.”

To prove their point, Dr. Teichman and Ms. Stinchfield raised their sleeves and received flu shots during the news briefing. 

“This one is for Brent,” Dr. Teichman said.

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

Don’t like needles? Have we got a vaccine for you

Here’s a quick question: How do you turn the most annoying thing ever into something positive?

No, we’re not talking about politicians this time. No, not Elon Musk, either. Infomercials? Guess again. Humidity? Nope, even more annoying than that.

Give up? The most annoying thing ever is mosquitoes. This time, however, NPR reports that mosquitoes have been used to deliver a vaccine for the very disease they’ve been transmitting to their human food sources all these years.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

In a recent proof-of-concept trial, investigators used CRISPR technology to genetically modify malaria-causing Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites, which just happen to live in the salivary glands of Anopheles mosquitoes. And since the Plasmodium parasites are already in the mosquitoes, it made sense to use the buzzy little critters as the delivery device for the vaccine.

More sense than a syringe, you ask? Have you ever tried to poke a syringe into the salivary gland of a mosquito? No, we thought not. Well, we can tell you from experience that it’s really, really hard. Never mind how we know. We just do.

The 14 study volunteers – who were paid $4,100 for their participation – were first exposed to hundreds of mosquitoes carrying the altered Plasmodium parasites. Then, to test the vaccine, they were exposed to mosquitoes that had actual, malaria-carrying Plasmodium. Half of the subjects got malaria, so the vaccine was only 50% effective, meaning there’s still work to do.

Meanwhile, the scientists here at LOTMEco are all over this mosquito-delivery business, working on a vaccine to prevent Elon Musk. Plan B involves some sort of really big swatter.
 

Climate change: Sleeping your life away

It’s no secret that climate change is raising the temperature on everything. You may think you’re getting relief when the sun goes down, but in some places it’s still hot. A new survey conducted in central Japan shows how bad it can be and how higher nighttime temperatures can have a serious impact on people’s health.

Public Domain Vectors

That online survey, the Sleep Quality Index for Daily Sleep, enabled the investigators to correlate sleep quality with daily temperature for 1,284 adults in 2011 and 2012 who completed the survey over 10 days.

Not only was there a significant difference in sleep disturbance among younger men (higher) versus older men, but the prevalence of sleep disturbance went up when the daytime temperature was above 24.8° C. They also found that disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), which measure time lost through premature death and time lived in certain conditions that put one’s health at risk, were 81.8 years for the city of Nagoya (population, 2.2 million) in 2012.

The damage to health from sleep disorders caused by daily temperatures higher than 25° C “is comparable to that of heatstroke and must be addressed,” lead author Tomohiko Ihara of the University of Tokyo said in a written statement.

The researchers hope that this information will help sway legislators to consider the impact of higher nighttime temperatures and that it can be used to provide guidance for better sleep. The solution for now? Sleep with the air conditioner on. Your energy bill might increase, but just think about those DALYs. If using the AC lowers DALYs and increases time lived, then we say it’s worth it.
 

Maybe it would have been a dragon WITH cancer

If you ask a random person on the street to tell you all they know about the country of Wales, they’ll probably mention two things: One, the contorted collection of jumbled-up letters that is the Welsh language (looking at you, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch) and, two, the association with dragons. The Welsh flag even has a dragon on it.

evakocsan/Pixnio

With that in mind, take a guess as to what sort of statue art dealer Simon Wingett wanted to build in the Welsh town of Wrexham. No, not a monument to the second-longest place name in the world. Try again. His dragon would not be some piddly little thing either; he wanted a virtual kaiju overlooking the town, with the whole statue to stand about 60 meters high. That’s taller than the original 1954 Godzilla.

Artistic masterpieces may sell for frankly insane prices, but art dealers themselves are not the wealthiest of individuals, so Mr. Wingett needed money to fund his dragon-based dream. Lucky for him, he also happened to be the manager of a cancer charity – initially set up by Mr. Wingett’s father, who had throat cancer – which nominally aimed to provide equipment and resources to cancer patients in the Wrexham area.

Yes, this is going precisely where you think it’s going. From 2011 to 2018, when the charity closed, Mr. Wingett used the charity’s donations to fund his dragon statue – which never actually got built, by the way – to the tune of over 400,000 pounds. Of course, Mr. Wingett came under scrutiny when people started to notice that his cancer charity hadn’t actually done anything charitable since 2011, and he was recently banned by the Welsh High Court from serving as trustee of any charity for 10 years. Oh no, tragedy and horror! Truly a punishment worse than death itself.

Okay fine, he also has to pay back 117,000 pounds to actual legitimate cancer charities. The astute mathematicians out there may notice that 117,000 is a lot less than 400,000. But it’s just as the old saying goes: One-quarter of crime doesn’t pay. You can keep three-quarters of it, though, that’s completely fine.

Don’t like needles? Have we got a vaccine for you

Here’s a quick question: How do you turn the most annoying thing ever into something positive?

No, we’re not talking about politicians this time. No, not Elon Musk, either. Infomercials? Guess again. Humidity? Nope, even more annoying than that.

Give up? The most annoying thing ever is mosquitoes. This time, however, NPR reports that mosquitoes have been used to deliver a vaccine for the very disease they’ve been transmitting to their human food sources all these years.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

In a recent proof-of-concept trial, investigators used CRISPR technology to genetically modify malaria-causing Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites, which just happen to live in the salivary glands of Anopheles mosquitoes. And since the Plasmodium parasites are already in the mosquitoes, it made sense to use the buzzy little critters as the delivery device for the vaccine.

More sense than a syringe, you ask? Have you ever tried to poke a syringe into the salivary gland of a mosquito? No, we thought not. Well, we can tell you from experience that it’s really, really hard. Never mind how we know. We just do.

The 14 study volunteers – who were paid $4,100 for their participation – were first exposed to hundreds of mosquitoes carrying the altered Plasmodium parasites. Then, to test the vaccine, they were exposed to mosquitoes that had actual, malaria-carrying Plasmodium. Half of the subjects got malaria, so the vaccine was only 50% effective, meaning there’s still work to do.

Meanwhile, the scientists here at LOTMEco are all over this mosquito-delivery business, working on a vaccine to prevent Elon Musk. Plan B involves some sort of really big swatter.
 

Climate change: Sleeping your life away

It’s no secret that climate change is raising the temperature on everything. You may think you’re getting relief when the sun goes down, but in some places it’s still hot. A new survey conducted in central Japan shows how bad it can be and how higher nighttime temperatures can have a serious impact on people’s health.

Public Domain Vectors

That online survey, the Sleep Quality Index for Daily Sleep, enabled the investigators to correlate sleep quality with daily temperature for 1,284 adults in 2011 and 2012 who completed the survey over 10 days.

Not only was there a significant difference in sleep disturbance among younger men (higher) versus older men, but the prevalence of sleep disturbance went up when the daytime temperature was above 24.8° C. They also found that disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), which measure time lost through premature death and time lived in certain conditions that put one’s health at risk, were 81.8 years for the city of Nagoya (population, 2.2 million) in 2012.

The damage to health from sleep disorders caused by daily temperatures higher than 25° C “is comparable to that of heatstroke and must be addressed,” lead author Tomohiko Ihara of the University of Tokyo said in a written statement.

The researchers hope that this information will help sway legislators to consider the impact of higher nighttime temperatures and that it can be used to provide guidance for better sleep. The solution for now? Sleep with the air conditioner on. Your energy bill might increase, but just think about those DALYs. If using the AC lowers DALYs and increases time lived, then we say it’s worth it.
 

Maybe it would have been a dragon WITH cancer

If you ask a random person on the street to tell you all they know about the country of Wales, they’ll probably mention two things: One, the contorted collection of jumbled-up letters that is the Welsh language (looking at you, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch) and, two, the association with dragons. The Welsh flag even has a dragon on it.

evakocsan/Pixnio

With that in mind, take a guess as to what sort of statue art dealer Simon Wingett wanted to build in the Welsh town of Wrexham. No, not a monument to the second-longest place name in the world. Try again. His dragon would not be some piddly little thing either; he wanted a virtual kaiju overlooking the town, with the whole statue to stand about 60 meters high. That’s taller than the original 1954 Godzilla.

Artistic masterpieces may sell for frankly insane prices, but art dealers themselves are not the wealthiest of individuals, so Mr. Wingett needed money to fund his dragon-based dream. Lucky for him, he also happened to be the manager of a cancer charity – initially set up by Mr. Wingett’s father, who had throat cancer – which nominally aimed to provide equipment and resources to cancer patients in the Wrexham area.

Yes, this is going precisely where you think it’s going. From 2011 to 2018, when the charity closed, Mr. Wingett used the charity’s donations to fund his dragon statue – which never actually got built, by the way – to the tune of over 400,000 pounds. Of course, Mr. Wingett came under scrutiny when people started to notice that his cancer charity hadn’t actually done anything charitable since 2011, and he was recently banned by the Welsh High Court from serving as trustee of any charity for 10 years. Oh no, tragedy and horror! Truly a punishment worse than death itself.

Okay fine, he also has to pay back 117,000 pounds to actual legitimate cancer charities. The astute mathematicians out there may notice that 117,000 is a lot less than 400,000. But it’s just as the old saying goes: One-quarter of crime doesn’t pay. You can keep three-quarters of it, though, that’s completely fine.

Don’t like needles? Have we got a vaccine for you

Here’s a quick question: How do you turn the most annoying thing ever into something positive?

No, we’re not talking about politicians this time. No, not Elon Musk, either. Infomercials? Guess again. Humidity? Nope, even more annoying than that.

Give up? The most annoying thing ever is mosquitoes. This time, however, NPR reports that mosquitoes have been used to deliver a vaccine for the very disease they’ve been transmitting to their human food sources all these years.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

In a recent proof-of-concept trial, investigators used CRISPR technology to genetically modify malaria-causing Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites, which just happen to live in the salivary glands of Anopheles mosquitoes. And since the Plasmodium parasites are already in the mosquitoes, it made sense to use the buzzy little critters as the delivery device for the vaccine.

More sense than a syringe, you ask? Have you ever tried to poke a syringe into the salivary gland of a mosquito? No, we thought not. Well, we can tell you from experience that it’s really, really hard. Never mind how we know. We just do.

The 14 study volunteers – who were paid $4,100 for their participation – were first exposed to hundreds of mosquitoes carrying the altered Plasmodium parasites. Then, to test the vaccine, they were exposed to mosquitoes that had actual, malaria-carrying Plasmodium. Half of the subjects got malaria, so the vaccine was only 50% effective, meaning there’s still work to do.

Meanwhile, the scientists here at LOTMEco are all over this mosquito-delivery business, working on a vaccine to prevent Elon Musk. Plan B involves some sort of really big swatter.
 

Climate change: Sleeping your life away

It’s no secret that climate change is raising the temperature on everything. You may think you’re getting relief when the sun goes down, but in some places it’s still hot. A new survey conducted in central Japan shows how bad it can be and how higher nighttime temperatures can have a serious impact on people’s health.

Public Domain Vectors

That online survey, the Sleep Quality Index for Daily Sleep, enabled the investigators to correlate sleep quality with daily temperature for 1,284 adults in 2011 and 2012 who completed the survey over 10 days.

Not only was there a significant difference in sleep disturbance among younger men (higher) versus older men, but the prevalence of sleep disturbance went up when the daytime temperature was above 24.8° C. They also found that disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), which measure time lost through premature death and time lived in certain conditions that put one’s health at risk, were 81.8 years for the city of Nagoya (population, 2.2 million) in 2012.

The damage to health from sleep disorders caused by daily temperatures higher than 25° C “is comparable to that of heatstroke and must be addressed,” lead author Tomohiko Ihara of the University of Tokyo said in a written statement.

The researchers hope that this information will help sway legislators to consider the impact of higher nighttime temperatures and that it can be used to provide guidance for better sleep. The solution for now? Sleep with the air conditioner on. Your energy bill might increase, but just think about those DALYs. If using the AC lowers DALYs and increases time lived, then we say it’s worth it.
 

Maybe it would have been a dragon WITH cancer

If you ask a random person on the street to tell you all they know about the country of Wales, they’ll probably mention two things: One, the contorted collection of jumbled-up letters that is the Welsh language (looking at you, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch) and, two, the association with dragons. The Welsh flag even has a dragon on it.

evakocsan/Pixnio

With that in mind, take a guess as to what sort of statue art dealer Simon Wingett wanted to build in the Welsh town of Wrexham. No, not a monument to the second-longest place name in the world. Try again. His dragon would not be some piddly little thing either; he wanted a virtual kaiju overlooking the town, with the whole statue to stand about 60 meters high. That’s taller than the original 1954 Godzilla.

Artistic masterpieces may sell for frankly insane prices, but art dealers themselves are not the wealthiest of individuals, so Mr. Wingett needed money to fund his dragon-based dream. Lucky for him, he also happened to be the manager of a cancer charity – initially set up by Mr. Wingett’s father, who had throat cancer – which nominally aimed to provide equipment and resources to cancer patients in the Wrexham area.

Yes, this is going precisely where you think it’s going. From 2011 to 2018, when the charity closed, Mr. Wingett used the charity’s donations to fund his dragon statue – which never actually got built, by the way – to the tune of over 400,000 pounds. Of course, Mr. Wingett came under scrutiny when people started to notice that his cancer charity hadn’t actually done anything charitable since 2011, and he was recently banned by the Welsh High Court from serving as trustee of any charity for 10 years. Oh no, tragedy and horror! Truly a punishment worse than death itself.

Okay fine, he also has to pay back 117,000 pounds to actual legitimate cancer charities. The astute mathematicians out there may notice that 117,000 is a lot less than 400,000. But it’s just as the old saying goes: One-quarter of crime doesn’t pay. You can keep three-quarters of it, though, that’s completely fine.