Vaccines

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”

Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.

American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.

Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.

The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

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

Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”

Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.

American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.

Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.

The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

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

Attention parents: The nation’s leading pediatric medical society is urging you to make sure your children get a flu shot this fall to prevent and control the spread of the illness.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called on parents and caregivers to seek flu vaccines for their children as soon as they are available in the fall. The group is encouraging parents to catch up on all other vaccines for their children, too.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I consider the flu vaccine as critical for all family members,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, said in a statement about the academy’s recommendations. “We should not underestimate the flu, especially when other respiratory viruses like COVID-19 are circulating within our communities. Besides making your child miserable and wreaking havoc on your family’s routine, influenza can also be serious and even deadly in children.”

Only 55% of children aged 6 months to 17 years had been vaccinated against influenza as of early April – down 2% from the previous April – and coverage levels were 8.1% lower for Black children compared with non-Hispanic White children, according to the CDC. In the 2019-2020 flu season, 188 children in the United States died of the infection, equaling the high mark for deaths set in the 2017-2018 season, the agency reported.

American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines recommend children aged 6 months and older be vaccinated with the flu vaccine every year. Depending on the child’s age and health, they may receive either a shot, which has an inactive version of the flu virus, or the nasal spray, which has a weakened form of the virus. The academy has more information about the different vaccines.

Children aged 6-8 months who are getting flu vaccines for the first time should receive two doses at least 4 weeks apart. Pregnant women can get the flu vaccine any time in their pregnancy. Influenza vaccines are safe for developing fetuses, according to the academy.

The group stressed the importance of flu vaccines for high-risk and medically vulnerable children and acknowledged the need to end barriers to immunizations for all people, regardless of income or insurance coverage. In 2020, an estimated 16.1% of children in the United States were living in poverty, up from 14.4% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

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

In recent weeks, the COVID-19 vaccine arsenal has grown more robust. Here’s what you need to know:

Variant-specific boosters. On September 1, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) adopted a recommendation for a booster of either a new bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 12 years and older) or bivalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 18 years and older) at least 2 months after receipt of a primary series or prior monovalent booster dose. Both bivalent vaccines were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and offer protection against one of the more common circulating strains of SARS-COV-2 (BA.1) while boosting immunity to the original strain. Both options are approved only as booster shots, not as an original COVID vaccine series.¹

Novavax vaccine. This summer, the FDA issued an EUA for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine in adults and a later EUA for adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years).² Novavax is the fourth vaccine available to combat COVID-19 infection. This newest addition to the COVID armamentarium consists of coronavirus protein subunits, produced using recombinant technology, and a matrix adjuvant. The primary series consists of 2 doses administered at least 3 weeks apart.^3,4

A few caveats: The Novavax vaccine comes in 10-dose vials, which should be kept refrigerated until use. Once the first dose is used, the vial should be discarded after 6 hours. This may present some scheduling and logistical issues. Also, the Novavax vaccine is not currently approved for use in children younger than 12 years, or as a booster to other vaccines.^3,4

The effectiveness and safety of the Novavax vaccine appears to be comparable to that of the other vaccines approved to date, although measuring vaccine effectiveness is a tricky business given the rapid mutation of the virus and changing dominant strains.^3,4 The Novavax vaccine’s efficacy against currently circulating Omicron variants of the virus (eg, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, BA.5) remains to be determined.

As far as safety, preliminary studies indicate that Novavax may be associated with rare cases of myocarditis.^3,4 Myocarditis can result from the COVID infection itself at an overall rate of 1 to 2 per 1000, which is 16 times the rate in adults without COVID.⁵

Could it provide reassurance to the hesitant? The Novavax COVID vaccine was developed using a vaccine platform and production process similar to that of other commonly administered vaccines, such as hepatitis B vaccine and human papillomavirus vaccine. This may make it an appealing option for patients who have shown hesitancy toward new vaccine technologies.

And, of course, there are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Currently, there are 2 vaccines approved under the normal licensing process for adults, both of which are mRNA-based vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those ages 12 years and older and Moderna (Spikevax) for those ages 18 and older. A third COVID vaccine option is manufactured by Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) and uses an adenovirus platform. The FDA revised its EUA in May to limit its use.⁶ The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been associated with rare but serious reactions called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. ACIP recommends all other vaccines in preference to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

For more on COVID vaccination for patients of all ages, see: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/COVID-19-immunization-schedule-ages-6months-older.pdf

In recent weeks, the COVID-19 vaccine arsenal has grown more robust. Here’s what you need to know:

Variant-specific boosters. On September 1, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) adopted a recommendation for a booster of either a new bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 12 years and older) or bivalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 18 years and older) at least 2 months after receipt of a primary series or prior monovalent booster dose. Both bivalent vaccines were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and offer protection against one of the more common circulating strains of SARS-COV-2 (BA.1) while boosting immunity to the original strain. Both options are approved only as booster shots, not as an original COVID vaccine series.¹

Novavax vaccine. This summer, the FDA issued an EUA for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine in adults and a later EUA for adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years).² Novavax is the fourth vaccine available to combat COVID-19 infection. This newest addition to the COVID armamentarium consists of coronavirus protein subunits, produced using recombinant technology, and a matrix adjuvant. The primary series consists of 2 doses administered at least 3 weeks apart.^3,4

A few caveats: The Novavax vaccine comes in 10-dose vials, which should be kept refrigerated until use. Once the first dose is used, the vial should be discarded after 6 hours. This may present some scheduling and logistical issues. Also, the Novavax vaccine is not currently approved for use in children younger than 12 years, or as a booster to other vaccines.^3,4

The effectiveness and safety of the Novavax vaccine appears to be comparable to that of the other vaccines approved to date, although measuring vaccine effectiveness is a tricky business given the rapid mutation of the virus and changing dominant strains.^3,4 The Novavax vaccine’s efficacy against currently circulating Omicron variants of the virus (eg, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, BA.5) remains to be determined.

As far as safety, preliminary studies indicate that Novavax may be associated with rare cases of myocarditis.^3,4 Myocarditis can result from the COVID infection itself at an overall rate of 1 to 2 per 1000, which is 16 times the rate in adults without COVID.⁵

Could it provide reassurance to the hesitant? The Novavax COVID vaccine was developed using a vaccine platform and production process similar to that of other commonly administered vaccines, such as hepatitis B vaccine and human papillomavirus vaccine. This may make it an appealing option for patients who have shown hesitancy toward new vaccine technologies.

And, of course, there are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Currently, there are 2 vaccines approved under the normal licensing process for adults, both of which are mRNA-based vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those ages 12 years and older and Moderna (Spikevax) for those ages 18 and older. A third COVID vaccine option is manufactured by Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) and uses an adenovirus platform. The FDA revised its EUA in May to limit its use.⁶ The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been associated with rare but serious reactions called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. ACIP recommends all other vaccines in preference to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

For more on COVID vaccination for patients of all ages, see: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/COVID-19-immunization-schedule-ages-6months-older.pdf

In recent weeks, the COVID-19 vaccine arsenal has grown more robust. Here’s what you need to know:

Variant-specific boosters. On September 1, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) adopted a recommendation for a booster of either a new bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 12 years and older) or bivalent Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (for individuals ages 18 years and older) at least 2 months after receipt of a primary series or prior monovalent booster dose. Both bivalent vaccines were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and offer protection against one of the more common circulating strains of SARS-COV-2 (BA.1) while boosting immunity to the original strain. Both options are approved only as booster shots, not as an original COVID vaccine series.¹

Novavax vaccine. This summer, the FDA issued an EUA for the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine in adults and a later EUA for adolescents (ages 12 to 17 years).² Novavax is the fourth vaccine available to combat COVID-19 infection. This newest addition to the COVID armamentarium consists of coronavirus protein subunits, produced using recombinant technology, and a matrix adjuvant. The primary series consists of 2 doses administered at least 3 weeks apart.^3,4

A few caveats: The Novavax vaccine comes in 10-dose vials, which should be kept refrigerated until use. Once the first dose is used, the vial should be discarded after 6 hours. This may present some scheduling and logistical issues. Also, the Novavax vaccine is not currently approved for use in children younger than 12 years, or as a booster to other vaccines.^3,4

The effectiveness and safety of the Novavax vaccine appears to be comparable to that of the other vaccines approved to date, although measuring vaccine effectiveness is a tricky business given the rapid mutation of the virus and changing dominant strains.^3,4 The Novavax vaccine’s efficacy against currently circulating Omicron variants of the virus (eg, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, BA.5) remains to be determined.

As far as safety, preliminary studies indicate that Novavax may be associated with rare cases of myocarditis.^3,4 Myocarditis can result from the COVID infection itself at an overall rate of 1 to 2 per 1000, which is 16 times the rate in adults without COVID.⁵

Could it provide reassurance to the hesitant? The Novavax COVID vaccine was developed using a vaccine platform and production process similar to that of other commonly administered vaccines, such as hepatitis B vaccine and human papillomavirus vaccine. This may make it an appealing option for patients who have shown hesitancy toward new vaccine technologies.

And, of course, there are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Currently, there are 2 vaccines approved under the normal licensing process for adults, both of which are mRNA-based vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty) for those ages 12 years and older and Moderna (Spikevax) for those ages 18 and older. A third COVID vaccine option is manufactured by Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) and uses an adenovirus platform. The FDA revised its EUA in May to limit its use.⁶ The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been associated with rare but serious reactions called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. ACIP recommends all other vaccines in preference to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

For more on COVID vaccination for patients of all ages, see: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/COVID-19-immunization-schedule-ages-6months-older.pdf

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration today granted emergency use authorization to Omicron-specific COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.

The agency cited data to support the safety and efficacy of this next generation of mRNA vaccines targeted toward variants of concern.

The Pfizer EUA corresponds to the company’s combination booster shot that includes the original COVID-19 vaccine as well as a vaccine specifically designed to protect against the most recent Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

The Moderna combination vaccine will contain both the firm’s original COVID-19 vaccine and a vaccine to protect specifically against Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.

As of Aug. 27, BA.4 and BA.4.6 account for about 11% of circulating variants and BA.5 accounts for almost all the remaining 89%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The next step will be review of the scientific data by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is set to meet Sept. 1 and 2. The final hurdle before distribution of the new vaccines will be sign-off on CDC recommendations for use by agency Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

This is a developing story. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration today granted emergency use authorization to Omicron-specific COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.

The agency cited data to support the safety and efficacy of this next generation of mRNA vaccines targeted toward variants of concern.

The Pfizer EUA corresponds to the company’s combination booster shot that includes the original COVID-19 vaccine as well as a vaccine specifically designed to protect against the most recent Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

The Moderna combination vaccine will contain both the firm’s original COVID-19 vaccine and a vaccine to protect specifically against Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.

As of Aug. 27, BA.4 and BA.4.6 account for about 11% of circulating variants and BA.5 accounts for almost all the remaining 89%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The next step will be review of the scientific data by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is set to meet Sept. 1 and 2. The final hurdle before distribution of the new vaccines will be sign-off on CDC recommendations for use by agency Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

This is a developing story. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration today granted emergency use authorization to Omicron-specific COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna.

The agency cited data to support the safety and efficacy of this next generation of mRNA vaccines targeted toward variants of concern.

The Pfizer EUA corresponds to the company’s combination booster shot that includes the original COVID-19 vaccine as well as a vaccine specifically designed to protect against the most recent Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.

The Moderna combination vaccine will contain both the firm’s original COVID-19 vaccine and a vaccine to protect specifically against Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.

As of Aug. 27, BA.4 and BA.4.6 account for about 11% of circulating variants and BA.5 accounts for almost all the remaining 89%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The next step will be review of the scientific data by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is set to meet Sept. 1 and 2. The final hurdle before distribution of the new vaccines will be sign-off on CDC recommendations for use by agency Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

This is a developing story. A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Adherence to well-child visits in the United States increased overall over a 10-year period, but a gap of up to 20% persisted between the highest and lowest adherence groups, reflecting disparities by race and ethnicity, poverty level, geography, and insurance status.

Well-child visits are recommended to provide children with preventive health and development services, ensure immunizations, and allow parents to discuss health concerns, wrote Salam Abdus, PhD, and Thomas M. Selden, PhD, of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md.

“We know from prior studies that as of 2008, well-child visits were trending upward, but often fell short of recommendations among key socioeconomic groups,” they wrote.

To examine recent trends in well-child visits, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) on children aged 0 to 18 years. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The study population included 19,018 children in 2006 and 2007 and 17,533 children in 2016 and 2017.

Adherence was defined as the ratio of reported well-child visits divided by the recommended number of visits in a calendar year.

Overall, the mean adherence increased from 47.9% in 2006-2007 to 62.3% in 2016-2017.

However, significant gaps persisted across race and ethnicity. Notably, adherence in the Hispanic population increased by nearly 22% between the study dates, compared to a 15.3% increase among White non-Hispanic children. However, Hispanic children still trailed White children overall in 2016-2017 (58% vs. 67.8%).

The smallest increase in adherence occurred among Black non-Hispanic children (5.6%) which further widened the gap between Black and White non-Hispanic children in 2016-2017 (52.5% vs. 67.8%).

Adherence rates increased similarly for children with public and private insurance (15.5% and 13.9%, respectively), but the adherence rates for uninsured children remained stable. Adherence in 2016-2017 for children with private, public, and no insurance were 66.3%, 58.7%, and 31.1%.

Also, despite overall increases in adherence across regions, a gap of more than 20% separated the region with the highest adherence (Northeast) from the lowest (West) in both the 2006-2007 and 2016-2017 periods (69.3% vs. 38.4%, and 79.3% vs. 55.2%, respectively).

The findings show an increase in well-child visits that spanned a time period of increased recommendations, economic changes, and the impact of the Affordable Care Act, but unaddressed disparities remain, the researchers noted.

Reducing disparities and improving adherence, “will require the combined efforts of researchers, policymakers, and clinicians to improve our understanding of adherence, to implement policies improving access to care, and to increase health care professional engagement with disadvantaged communities,” they concluded.
 

Overall increases are encouraging, but barriers need attention

“Demographic data are critical to determine which groups of children need the most support for recommended well child care,” Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. In the current study, “it was encouraging to see how either public or private insurance significantly increased the percentage of children receiving well child care,” she said.

The level of increased adherence to AAP-recommended guidelines for well-child visits was surprising, said Dr. Boulter. The overall increase is likely attributable in part to the increased coverage for well-child visits in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, as the study authors mention, she said.

“The gains experienced by Hispanic families were especially encouraging,” she added.

However, ongoing barriers to well-child care include “lack of adequate provider numbers and mix, transportation difficulties for patients, and lack of child care and time away from work for parents so they can complete the recommended well child visit schedule,” Dr. Boulter noted. “Provider schedules and locations of care should be improved so families would have easier access. Also, social media should have more positive well-child messages to counteract the negative messaging.”

More research is needed to examine the impact of COVID-19 on well-child visits, Dr. Boulter emphasized. “Most likely, the percentages in all groups will have changed since COVID-19 has impacted office practices,” she said. “Anxiety about COVID-19 transmissibility in the pediatric office decreased routine office visits, and skepticism about vaccines, including vaccine refusal, has significantly changed the percentage of children who have received the AAP recommended vaccines,” she explained. Ideally, the study authors will review the MEPS data again to examine changes since the COVID-19 pandemic began, she told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Adherence to well-child visits in the United States increased overall over a 10-year period, but a gap of up to 20% persisted between the highest and lowest adherence groups, reflecting disparities by race and ethnicity, poverty level, geography, and insurance status.

Well-child visits are recommended to provide children with preventive health and development services, ensure immunizations, and allow parents to discuss health concerns, wrote Salam Abdus, PhD, and Thomas M. Selden, PhD, of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md.

“We know from prior studies that as of 2008, well-child visits were trending upward, but often fell short of recommendations among key socioeconomic groups,” they wrote.

To examine recent trends in well-child visits, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) on children aged 0 to 18 years. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The study population included 19,018 children in 2006 and 2007 and 17,533 children in 2016 and 2017.

Adherence was defined as the ratio of reported well-child visits divided by the recommended number of visits in a calendar year.

Overall, the mean adherence increased from 47.9% in 2006-2007 to 62.3% in 2016-2017.

However, significant gaps persisted across race and ethnicity. Notably, adherence in the Hispanic population increased by nearly 22% between the study dates, compared to a 15.3% increase among White non-Hispanic children. However, Hispanic children still trailed White children overall in 2016-2017 (58% vs. 67.8%).

The smallest increase in adherence occurred among Black non-Hispanic children (5.6%) which further widened the gap between Black and White non-Hispanic children in 2016-2017 (52.5% vs. 67.8%).

Adherence rates increased similarly for children with public and private insurance (15.5% and 13.9%, respectively), but the adherence rates for uninsured children remained stable. Adherence in 2016-2017 for children with private, public, and no insurance were 66.3%, 58.7%, and 31.1%.

Also, despite overall increases in adherence across regions, a gap of more than 20% separated the region with the highest adherence (Northeast) from the lowest (West) in both the 2006-2007 and 2016-2017 periods (69.3% vs. 38.4%, and 79.3% vs. 55.2%, respectively).

The findings show an increase in well-child visits that spanned a time period of increased recommendations, economic changes, and the impact of the Affordable Care Act, but unaddressed disparities remain, the researchers noted.

Reducing disparities and improving adherence, “will require the combined efforts of researchers, policymakers, and clinicians to improve our understanding of adherence, to implement policies improving access to care, and to increase health care professional engagement with disadvantaged communities,” they concluded.
 

Overall increases are encouraging, but barriers need attention

“Demographic data are critical to determine which groups of children need the most support for recommended well child care,” Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. In the current study, “it was encouraging to see how either public or private insurance significantly increased the percentage of children receiving well child care,” she said.

The level of increased adherence to AAP-recommended guidelines for well-child visits was surprising, said Dr. Boulter. The overall increase is likely attributable in part to the increased coverage for well-child visits in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, as the study authors mention, she said.

“The gains experienced by Hispanic families were especially encouraging,” she added.

However, ongoing barriers to well-child care include “lack of adequate provider numbers and mix, transportation difficulties for patients, and lack of child care and time away from work for parents so they can complete the recommended well child visit schedule,” Dr. Boulter noted. “Provider schedules and locations of care should be improved so families would have easier access. Also, social media should have more positive well-child messages to counteract the negative messaging.”

More research is needed to examine the impact of COVID-19 on well-child visits, Dr. Boulter emphasized. “Most likely, the percentages in all groups will have changed since COVID-19 has impacted office practices,” she said. “Anxiety about COVID-19 transmissibility in the pediatric office decreased routine office visits, and skepticism about vaccines, including vaccine refusal, has significantly changed the percentage of children who have received the AAP recommended vaccines,” she explained. Ideally, the study authors will review the MEPS data again to examine changes since the COVID-19 pandemic began, she told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Adherence to well-child visits in the United States increased overall over a 10-year period, but a gap of up to 20% persisted between the highest and lowest adherence groups, reflecting disparities by race and ethnicity, poverty level, geography, and insurance status.

Well-child visits are recommended to provide children with preventive health and development services, ensure immunizations, and allow parents to discuss health concerns, wrote Salam Abdus, PhD, and Thomas M. Selden, PhD, of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md.

“We know from prior studies that as of 2008, well-child visits were trending upward, but often fell short of recommendations among key socioeconomic groups,” they wrote.

To examine recent trends in well-child visits, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) on children aged 0 to 18 years. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The study population included 19,018 children in 2006 and 2007 and 17,533 children in 2016 and 2017.

Adherence was defined as the ratio of reported well-child visits divided by the recommended number of visits in a calendar year.

Overall, the mean adherence increased from 47.9% in 2006-2007 to 62.3% in 2016-2017.

However, significant gaps persisted across race and ethnicity. Notably, adherence in the Hispanic population increased by nearly 22% between the study dates, compared to a 15.3% increase among White non-Hispanic children. However, Hispanic children still trailed White children overall in 2016-2017 (58% vs. 67.8%).

The smallest increase in adherence occurred among Black non-Hispanic children (5.6%) which further widened the gap between Black and White non-Hispanic children in 2016-2017 (52.5% vs. 67.8%).

Adherence rates increased similarly for children with public and private insurance (15.5% and 13.9%, respectively), but the adherence rates for uninsured children remained stable. Adherence in 2016-2017 for children with private, public, and no insurance were 66.3%, 58.7%, and 31.1%.

Also, despite overall increases in adherence across regions, a gap of more than 20% separated the region with the highest adherence (Northeast) from the lowest (West) in both the 2006-2007 and 2016-2017 periods (69.3% vs. 38.4%, and 79.3% vs. 55.2%, respectively).

The findings show an increase in well-child visits that spanned a time period of increased recommendations, economic changes, and the impact of the Affordable Care Act, but unaddressed disparities remain, the researchers noted.

Reducing disparities and improving adherence, “will require the combined efforts of researchers, policymakers, and clinicians to improve our understanding of adherence, to implement policies improving access to care, and to increase health care professional engagement with disadvantaged communities,” they concluded.
 

Overall increases are encouraging, but barriers need attention

“Demographic data are critical to determine which groups of children need the most support for recommended well child care,” Susan Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. In the current study, “it was encouraging to see how either public or private insurance significantly increased the percentage of children receiving well child care,” she said.

The level of increased adherence to AAP-recommended guidelines for well-child visits was surprising, said Dr. Boulter. The overall increase is likely attributable in part to the increased coverage for well-child visits in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, as the study authors mention, she said.

“The gains experienced by Hispanic families were especially encouraging,” she added.

However, ongoing barriers to well-child care include “lack of adequate provider numbers and mix, transportation difficulties for patients, and lack of child care and time away from work for parents so they can complete the recommended well child visit schedule,” Dr. Boulter noted. “Provider schedules and locations of care should be improved so families would have easier access. Also, social media should have more positive well-child messages to counteract the negative messaging.”

More research is needed to examine the impact of COVID-19 on well-child visits, Dr. Boulter emphasized. “Most likely, the percentages in all groups will have changed since COVID-19 has impacted office practices,” she said. “Anxiety about COVID-19 transmissibility in the pediatric office decreased routine office visits, and skepticism about vaccines, including vaccine refusal, has significantly changed the percentage of children who have received the AAP recommended vaccines,” she explained. Ideally, the study authors will review the MEPS data again to examine changes since the COVID-19 pandemic began, she told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.