Immunology

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

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

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

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

PHOENIX – New results from a separate, larger phase 3 trial confirm the benefits of dupilumab (Dupixent) in adults and adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), showing that weekly injections of the biologic sent 59% of EoE patients into disease remission after 24 weeks. The late-breaking data on Part B of the LIBERTY EoE TREET study drew a standing-room-only crowd at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) annual meeting.

EoE is a chronic, progressive, type 2 inflammatory disease resulting from esophageal build-up of eosinophils, which injures the tissue and leads to swallowing difficulties. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks type 2 immune responses, is currently approved to treat poorly controlled atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Dupilumab also showed benefits in patients with hard-to-treat EoE in a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY EoE TREET 28-week extension of Part A), reported by Medscape Medical News in October from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) annual meeting.

Part B enrolled 159 EoE patients 12 years or older and tested the efficacy and safety of weekly 300 mg dupilumab versus placebo injections for 24 weeks. More than half of the participants had previously tried swallowed topical corticosteroids, and about 30% were on a food elimination diet. (Generally, corticosteroids and elimination diets are about 70% effective in EoE.)

Compared with placebo, 6 months of weekly dupilumab reduced eosinophils in the esophagus and produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the ability to swallow.

Treated participants saw a 64% reduction in disease symptoms (23.8-point improvement on the self-reported Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]), compared with 41% reduction (13.9 point DSQ improvement) in the placebo group. 

Histologically, dupilumab reduced peak eosinophil counts to 6 or lower in 59% of patients, whereas only 6% achieved disease remission on placebo.

On safety, dupilumab was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment adverse events were injection site reactions (occurring in about 20% of both groups) or injection site erythema (occurring in 10% of treated patients and 11.5% of placebo patients).

“These results replicate those in Part A in a larger sample size,” Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of the division of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, noted in a prerecorded presentation.

Based on the phase 3 data, dupilumab seems “effective for patients who may have no other options for managing their EoE,” Brian Schroer, MD, director of allergy and immunology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. Dr. Schroer expects EoE cases to rise as more food allergy patients begin oral immunotherapy (OIT), where studies have shown EoE as a side effect in about 4% of patients undergoing OIT.

In a live Q&A following the prerecorded talk, Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told attendees that data from Part B’s second arm, which tested dupilumab injections given every other week, have not yet been presented. So far, histological results in this arm look identical to those of patients who received weekly dupilumab, though symptoms “did not meet statistical significance,” he said. “I think we’re going to have much more detail about those results at some conferences to come in the spring.”

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon and Dr. Rothenberg reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Schroer has received consulting fees from Sanofi and Ready, Set, Food.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.

Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.” 

Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.

Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).

Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall. 

Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.

Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.

“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”

Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Many factors influence a child’s subsequent susceptibility to respiratory tract infection (RTI), including breastfeeding, crowded conditions, and exposure to environmental tobacco. Now researchers have found that asymptomatic viral infection in the first days of a baby’s life are linked to a greater risk of respiratory infections in later life.

The new research, published in Nature Microbiology, was conducted as part of the Microbiome Utrecht Infant Study (MUIS), a healthy infant birth cohort study that’s been running for 6 years.

In their study, the authors explained how the respiratory tract is “populated by a specialized microbial ecosystem, which is seeded during and directly following birth,” adding that, “despite recognition of many host and environmental factors known to modulate RTI susceptibility, the mechanism by which a child develops recurrent or severe RTIs, while others remain healthy, remains largely unknown”.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands) examined nasal mucosa samples of 114 babies at various times from birth until 12 months of age. They then analyzed the gene activity of the babies’ nasal mucosa, the microbes present in the lining of the nose, and any viruses that infected the children.
 

Interferon-related mucosal gene activity

The researchers described how the microbiome – the community of microbes in the body – of a newborn baby can be influenced by many things, including delivery method, breastfeeding, antibiotics and the hospital environment. They highlighted how viruses were found to interact with a newborn’s immune system and microbiome in a way that affected both a child’s risk, and number, of subsequent infections.

They explained how when a viral infection was detected in the first days after birth, which they said largely occurred asymptomatically, specific mucosal genes were activated – genes involved with interferons – coinciding with a change in the composition of the microbiome, promoting the growth of potentially harmful microbes.

“The interferon-related gene activity caused by an early first viral infection is thought to create a proinflammatory environment that makes babies susceptible to future infections,” they said, adding that in their study they have demonstrated that “first asymptomatic viral encounters were associated with increased interferon signaling, and preceded the development of disadvantageous respiratory microbiota profiles and clinical RTIs”.
 

Proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment

Debby Bogaert, PhD, chair of paediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “We were surprised to see viral infections occur so early in life, and go mostly unnoticed, probably because the infant’s immune system is in what is known as a state of tolerance after birth. Despite this, these infections seem to affect a normal immune development, which is important to know.”

The authors wrote that their data supports the hypothesis that first viral encounters trigger an interferon-associated proinflammatory environment, which then further drives airway inflammation and symptomatology in a “self-enforcing positive feedback loop”. They said that this “proinflammatory and microbiologically perturbed environment in turn renders an individual more vulnerable to recurrent viral-induced RTIs”.

Wouter de Steenhuijsen, PhD, postdoctoral investigator at University Medical Centre Utrecht, said: “Although further work will be needed to confirm the causality of our findings, the data from this study indicate that early-life encounters with respiratory viruses – especially during the first days of life – may set the tone for subsequent non-beneficial host-microbe interactions, which are related to an infection risk and possibly long term respiratory health.”

Dr. Bogaert added: “Only from birth onwards will an infant start to develop its microbiome. Limiting the number of viral encounters in those first days to weeks of life might be essential for a healthy immune and microbiome development, and consequently long term respiratory health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.