Pneumonia

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A model incorporating factors such as lymphocytes and lung lesions differentiated adenovirus pneumonias from Chlamydia psittaci (CPP) in a multicenter study of nearly 200 individuals.

Symptoms of pneumonia caused by CPP are often confused with other respiratory infections, particularly adenovirus pneumonia (AVP), which can delay correct diagnosis and impact treatment, Yi Li, MD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues wrote. Detailed comparisons of the two conditions are lacking.

In a retrospective study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers examined laboratory, clinical, and radiological differences and created a nomogram to distinguish CPP from AVP. The study population included 78 adults with CPP and 102 with AVP who were seen at a single center in China. The mean ages of the CPP and AVP patients were 61.0 years and 38.5 years, and 57.7% men and 91.2% men, respectively. Patients with CPP were significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes at baseline, compared with the AVP group.

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after hospital admission, which was 10.3% and 14.7% for the CPP and AVP patients, respectively (P = 0.376). However, the incidence of cardiac injury was significantly higher in AVP patients versus those with CPP (48.0% vs. 11.5%; P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, nervous system symptoms, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein level (CRP), and bilateral lung lesions were risk factors for CPP. The researchers combined these factors into a nomogram that showed a concordance value of 0.949 for differentiating between the CPP and AVP groups.

Overall, CPP patients were older, had more nervous system symptoms, and had higher CRP levels, compared with patients with AVP, who were more likely to be men and to have higher lymphocyte percentages and more bilateral lung lesions on chest imaging.

The current study is the first known to provide a way to distinguish CPP and AVP, the researchers wrote. “The antibiotic treatments, prognoses, and life support measures of CPP and AVP are considerably different. Therefore, differentiating the two diseases through early identification of specific clinical characteristics is vital.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and the use of mNGS to diagnose CPP in the absence of standard clinical diagnostic kits, which may have resulted in underestimated CPP incidence, the researchers noted.

However, “the nomogram we established combines patient data on age, sex, and readily available laboratory results to reasonably predict CPP, thus making rapid and direct diagnosis possible,” they said.

The study was supported by the Key R&D Program of Hunan Province, Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hunan Natural Science Youth Foundation, and the national key clinical specialist construction programs of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A model incorporating factors such as lymphocytes and lung lesions differentiated adenovirus pneumonias from Chlamydia psittaci (CPP) in a multicenter study of nearly 200 individuals.

Symptoms of pneumonia caused by CPP are often confused with other respiratory infections, particularly adenovirus pneumonia (AVP), which can delay correct diagnosis and impact treatment, Yi Li, MD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues wrote. Detailed comparisons of the two conditions are lacking.

In a retrospective study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers examined laboratory, clinical, and radiological differences and created a nomogram to distinguish CPP from AVP. The study population included 78 adults with CPP and 102 with AVP who were seen at a single center in China. The mean ages of the CPP and AVP patients were 61.0 years and 38.5 years, and 57.7% men and 91.2% men, respectively. Patients with CPP were significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes at baseline, compared with the AVP group.

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after hospital admission, which was 10.3% and 14.7% for the CPP and AVP patients, respectively (P = 0.376). However, the incidence of cardiac injury was significantly higher in AVP patients versus those with CPP (48.0% vs. 11.5%; P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, nervous system symptoms, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein level (CRP), and bilateral lung lesions were risk factors for CPP. The researchers combined these factors into a nomogram that showed a concordance value of 0.949 for differentiating between the CPP and AVP groups.

Overall, CPP patients were older, had more nervous system symptoms, and had higher CRP levels, compared with patients with AVP, who were more likely to be men and to have higher lymphocyte percentages and more bilateral lung lesions on chest imaging.

The current study is the first known to provide a way to distinguish CPP and AVP, the researchers wrote. “The antibiotic treatments, prognoses, and life support measures of CPP and AVP are considerably different. Therefore, differentiating the two diseases through early identification of specific clinical characteristics is vital.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and the use of mNGS to diagnose CPP in the absence of standard clinical diagnostic kits, which may have resulted in underestimated CPP incidence, the researchers noted.

However, “the nomogram we established combines patient data on age, sex, and readily available laboratory results to reasonably predict CPP, thus making rapid and direct diagnosis possible,” they said.

The study was supported by the Key R&D Program of Hunan Province, Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hunan Natural Science Youth Foundation, and the national key clinical specialist construction programs of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A model incorporating factors such as lymphocytes and lung lesions differentiated adenovirus pneumonias from Chlamydia psittaci (CPP) in a multicenter study of nearly 200 individuals.

Symptoms of pneumonia caused by CPP are often confused with other respiratory infections, particularly adenovirus pneumonia (AVP), which can delay correct diagnosis and impact treatment, Yi Li, MD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues wrote. Detailed comparisons of the two conditions are lacking.

In a retrospective study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers examined laboratory, clinical, and radiological differences and created a nomogram to distinguish CPP from AVP. The study population included 78 adults with CPP and 102 with AVP who were seen at a single center in China. The mean ages of the CPP and AVP patients were 61.0 years and 38.5 years, and 57.7% men and 91.2% men, respectively. Patients with CPP were significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes at baseline, compared with the AVP group.

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after hospital admission, which was 10.3% and 14.7% for the CPP and AVP patients, respectively (P = 0.376). However, the incidence of cardiac injury was significantly higher in AVP patients versus those with CPP (48.0% vs. 11.5%; P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, nervous system symptoms, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein level (CRP), and bilateral lung lesions were risk factors for CPP. The researchers combined these factors into a nomogram that showed a concordance value of 0.949 for differentiating between the CPP and AVP groups.

Overall, CPP patients were older, had more nervous system symptoms, and had higher CRP levels, compared with patients with AVP, who were more likely to be men and to have higher lymphocyte percentages and more bilateral lung lesions on chest imaging.

The current study is the first known to provide a way to distinguish CPP and AVP, the researchers wrote. “The antibiotic treatments, prognoses, and life support measures of CPP and AVP are considerably different. Therefore, differentiating the two diseases through early identification of specific clinical characteristics is vital.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, retrospective design, and the use of mNGS to diagnose CPP in the absence of standard clinical diagnostic kits, which may have resulted in underestimated CPP incidence, the researchers noted.

However, “the nomogram we established combines patient data on age, sex, and readily available laboratory results to reasonably predict CPP, thus making rapid and direct diagnosis possible,” they said.

The study was supported by the Key R&D Program of Hunan Province, Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hunan Natural Science Youth Foundation, and the national key clinical specialist construction programs of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

Patients with iron deficiency anemia who developed bacterial pneumonia showed improved outcomes compared to those without iron deficiency anemia, based on data from more than 450,000 individuals in the National Inpatient Sample.

Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide, and can lead to anemia, but iron also has been identified as essential to the survival and growth of pathogenic organisms, Mubarak Yusuf, MD, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the specific impact of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) on outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute bacterial infections has not been explored, said Dr. Yusuf, a third-year internal medicine resident at Lincoln Medical Center in New York.

In the study, Dr. Yusuf and colleagues reviewed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database for 2016-2019. They identified 452,040 adults aged 18 or older with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes. Patients with a principal diagnosis other than bacterial pneumonia were excluded.

Of these, 5.5% had a secondary diagnosis of IDA. The mean age of the study population was similar between the IDA and non-IDA groups (68 years) and racial distribution was similar, with a White majority of approximately 77%. Slightly more patients in the IDA group were women (58.5% vs. 51.6%) and this difference was statistically significant (P < .00001). Most of the patients (94.6%) in the IDA group had at least three comorbidities, as did 78.1% of the non-IDA group.

The primary outcome was mortality, and the overall mortality in the study population was 2.89%. Although the mortality percentage was higher in the IDA group compared to the non-IDA group (3.25% vs. 2.87%), “when we adjusted for confounders, we noticed a decreased odds of mortality in the IDA group” with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (P = .001), Dr. Yusuf said.

In addition, secondary outcomes of septic shock, acute respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest were lower in the IDA group in a regression analysis, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.71, 0.78, and 0.57, respectively.

The mean length of stay was 0.3 days higher in the IDA group, and the researchers found a nonsignificant increase in total hospital costs of $402.5 for IDA patients compared to those without IDA, said Dr. Yusuf.

The take-home message from the study is actually a question to the clinician, Dr. Yusuf said. “Should you consider a delay in treatment [of iron deficiency anemia] if the patient is not symptomatic?” he asked.

More research is needed to investigate the improved outcomes in the iron deficient population, but the large sample size supports an association that is worth exploring, he concluded.

“The findings of this research may suggest a protective effect of iron deficiency in acute bacterial pneumonia,” Dr. Yusuf said in a press release accompanying the meeting presentation. “More research is needed to elucidate the improved outcomes found in this population, but this research may lead clinicians to consider a delay in treatment of nonsymptomatic iron deficiency in acute bacterial infection,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with iron deficiency anemia who developed bacterial pneumonia showed improved outcomes compared to those without iron deficiency anemia, based on data from more than 450,000 individuals in the National Inpatient Sample.

Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide, and can lead to anemia, but iron also has been identified as essential to the survival and growth of pathogenic organisms, Mubarak Yusuf, MD, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the specific impact of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) on outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute bacterial infections has not been explored, said Dr. Yusuf, a third-year internal medicine resident at Lincoln Medical Center in New York.

In the study, Dr. Yusuf and colleagues reviewed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database for 2016-2019. They identified 452,040 adults aged 18 or older with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes. Patients with a principal diagnosis other than bacterial pneumonia were excluded.

Of these, 5.5% had a secondary diagnosis of IDA. The mean age of the study population was similar between the IDA and non-IDA groups (68 years) and racial distribution was similar, with a White majority of approximately 77%. Slightly more patients in the IDA group were women (58.5% vs. 51.6%) and this difference was statistically significant (P < .00001). Most of the patients (94.6%) in the IDA group had at least three comorbidities, as did 78.1% of the non-IDA group.

The primary outcome was mortality, and the overall mortality in the study population was 2.89%. Although the mortality percentage was higher in the IDA group compared to the non-IDA group (3.25% vs. 2.87%), “when we adjusted for confounders, we noticed a decreased odds of mortality in the IDA group” with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (P = .001), Dr. Yusuf said.

In addition, secondary outcomes of septic shock, acute respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest were lower in the IDA group in a regression analysis, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.71, 0.78, and 0.57, respectively.

The mean length of stay was 0.3 days higher in the IDA group, and the researchers found a nonsignificant increase in total hospital costs of $402.5 for IDA patients compared to those without IDA, said Dr. Yusuf.

The take-home message from the study is actually a question to the clinician, Dr. Yusuf said. “Should you consider a delay in treatment [of iron deficiency anemia] if the patient is not symptomatic?” he asked.

More research is needed to investigate the improved outcomes in the iron deficient population, but the large sample size supports an association that is worth exploring, he concluded.

“The findings of this research may suggest a protective effect of iron deficiency in acute bacterial pneumonia,” Dr. Yusuf said in a press release accompanying the meeting presentation. “More research is needed to elucidate the improved outcomes found in this population, but this research may lead clinicians to consider a delay in treatment of nonsymptomatic iron deficiency in acute bacterial infection,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with iron deficiency anemia who developed bacterial pneumonia showed improved outcomes compared to those without iron deficiency anemia, based on data from more than 450,000 individuals in the National Inpatient Sample.

Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide, and can lead to anemia, but iron also has been identified as essential to the survival and growth of pathogenic organisms, Mubarak Yusuf, MD, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the specific impact of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) on outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute bacterial infections has not been explored, said Dr. Yusuf, a third-year internal medicine resident at Lincoln Medical Center in New York.

In the study, Dr. Yusuf and colleagues reviewed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database for 2016-2019. They identified 452,040 adults aged 18 or older with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes. Patients with a principal diagnosis other than bacterial pneumonia were excluded.

Of these, 5.5% had a secondary diagnosis of IDA. The mean age of the study population was similar between the IDA and non-IDA groups (68 years) and racial distribution was similar, with a White majority of approximately 77%. Slightly more patients in the IDA group were women (58.5% vs. 51.6%) and this difference was statistically significant (P < .00001). Most of the patients (94.6%) in the IDA group had at least three comorbidities, as did 78.1% of the non-IDA group.

The primary outcome was mortality, and the overall mortality in the study population was 2.89%. Although the mortality percentage was higher in the IDA group compared to the non-IDA group (3.25% vs. 2.87%), “when we adjusted for confounders, we noticed a decreased odds of mortality in the IDA group” with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (P = .001), Dr. Yusuf said.

In addition, secondary outcomes of septic shock, acute respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest were lower in the IDA group in a regression analysis, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.71, 0.78, and 0.57, respectively.

The mean length of stay was 0.3 days higher in the IDA group, and the researchers found a nonsignificant increase in total hospital costs of $402.5 for IDA patients compared to those without IDA, said Dr. Yusuf.

The take-home message from the study is actually a question to the clinician, Dr. Yusuf said. “Should you consider a delay in treatment [of iron deficiency anemia] if the patient is not symptomatic?” he asked.

More research is needed to investigate the improved outcomes in the iron deficient population, but the large sample size supports an association that is worth exploring, he concluded.

“The findings of this research may suggest a protective effect of iron deficiency in acute bacterial pneumonia,” Dr. Yusuf said in a press release accompanying the meeting presentation. “More research is needed to elucidate the improved outcomes found in this population, but this research may lead clinicians to consider a delay in treatment of nonsymptomatic iron deficiency in acute bacterial infection,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four years ago, when Dr. Karen Giuliano went to a Boston hospital for hip replacement surgery, she was given a pale-pink bucket of toiletries issued to patients in many hospitals. Inside were tissues, bar soap, deodorant, toothpaste, and, without a doubt, the worst toothbrush she’d ever seen.

“I couldn’t believe it. I got a toothbrush with no bristles,” she said. “It must have not gone through the bristle machine. It was just a stick.”

To most patients, a useless hospital toothbrush would be a mild inconvenience. But to Dr. Giuliano, a nursing professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, it was a reminder of a pervasive “blind spot” in U.S. hospitals: the stunning consequences of unbrushed teeth.

Hospital patients not getting their teeth brushed, or not brushing their teeth themselves, is believed to be a leading cause of hundreds of thousands of cases of pneumonia a year in patients who have not been put on a ventilator. Pneumonia is among the most common infections that occur in health care facilities, and a majority of cases are nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, or NVHAP, which kills up to 30% of those infected, Dr. Giuliano and other experts said.

But unlike many infections that strike within hospitals, the federal government doesn’t require hospitals to report cases of NVHAP. As a result, few hospitals understand the origin of the illness, track its occurrence, or actively work to prevent it, the experts said.

Many cases of NVHAP could be avoided if hospital staffers more dutifully brushed the teeth of bedridden patients, according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research papers. Instead, many hospitals often skip teeth brushing to prioritize other tasks and provide only cheap, ineffective toothbrushes, often unaware of the consequences, said Dr. Dian Baker, a Sacramento (Calif.) State nursing professor who has spent more than a decade studying NVHAP.

“I’ll tell you that today the vast majority of the tens of thousands of nurses in hospitals have no idea that pneumonia comes from germs in the mouth,” Dr. Baker said.

Pneumonia occurs when germs trigger an infection in the lungs. Although NVHAP accounts for most of the cases that occur in hospitals, it historically has not received the same attention as pneumonia tied to ventilators, which is easier to identify and study because it occurs among a narrow subset of patients.

NVHAP, a risk for virtually all hospital patients, is often caused by bacteria from the mouth that gathers in the scummy biofilm on unbrushed teeth and is aspirated into the lungs. Patients face a higher risk if they lie flat or remain immobile for long periods, so NVHAP can also be prevented by elevating their heads and getting them out of bed more often.

According to the National Organization for NV-HAP Prevention, which was founded in 2020, this pneumonia infects about 1 in every 100 hospital patients and kills 15%-30% of them. For those who survive, the illness often extends their hospital stay by up to 15 days and makes it much more likely they will be readmitted within a month or transferred to an intensive care unit.

John McCleary, 83, of Millinocket, Maine, contracted a likely case of NVHAP in 2008 after he fractured his ankle in a fall and spent 12 days in rehabilitation at a hospital, said his daughter, Kathy Day, a retired nurse and advocate with the Patient Safety Action Network.

Mr. McCleary recovered from the fracture but not from pneumonia. Two days after he returned home, the infection in his lungs caused him to be rushed back to the hospital, where he went into sepsis and spent weeks in treatment before moving to an isolation unit in a nursing home.

He died weeks later, emaciated, largely deaf, unable to eat, and often “too weak to get water through a straw,” his daughter said. After contracting pneumonia, he never walked again.

“It was an astounding assault on his body, from him being here visiting me the week before his fall, to his death just a few months later,” Ms. Day said. “And the whole thing was avoidable.”

While experts describe NVHAP as a largely ignored threat, that appears to be changing.

Last year, a group of researchers – including Dr. Giuliano and Dr. Baker, plus officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Joint Commission – published a “call-to-action” research paper hoping to launch “a national health care conversation about NVHAP prevention.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Four years ago, when Dr. Karen Giuliano went to a Boston hospital for hip replacement surgery, she was given a pale-pink bucket of toiletries issued to patients in many hospitals. Inside were tissues, bar soap, deodorant, toothpaste, and, without a doubt, the worst toothbrush she’d ever seen.

“I couldn’t believe it. I got a toothbrush with no bristles,” she said. “It must have not gone through the bristle machine. It was just a stick.”

To most patients, a useless hospital toothbrush would be a mild inconvenience. But to Dr. Giuliano, a nursing professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, it was a reminder of a pervasive “blind spot” in U.S. hospitals: the stunning consequences of unbrushed teeth.

Hospital patients not getting their teeth brushed, or not brushing their teeth themselves, is believed to be a leading cause of hundreds of thousands of cases of pneumonia a year in patients who have not been put on a ventilator. Pneumonia is among the most common infections that occur in health care facilities, and a majority of cases are nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, or NVHAP, which kills up to 30% of those infected, Dr. Giuliano and other experts said.

But unlike many infections that strike within hospitals, the federal government doesn’t require hospitals to report cases of NVHAP. As a result, few hospitals understand the origin of the illness, track its occurrence, or actively work to prevent it, the experts said.

Many cases of NVHAP could be avoided if hospital staffers more dutifully brushed the teeth of bedridden patients, according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research papers. Instead, many hospitals often skip teeth brushing to prioritize other tasks and provide only cheap, ineffective toothbrushes, often unaware of the consequences, said Dr. Dian Baker, a Sacramento (Calif.) State nursing professor who has spent more than a decade studying NVHAP.

“I’ll tell you that today the vast majority of the tens of thousands of nurses in hospitals have no idea that pneumonia comes from germs in the mouth,” Dr. Baker said.

Pneumonia occurs when germs trigger an infection in the lungs. Although NVHAP accounts for most of the cases that occur in hospitals, it historically has not received the same attention as pneumonia tied to ventilators, which is easier to identify and study because it occurs among a narrow subset of patients.

NVHAP, a risk for virtually all hospital patients, is often caused by bacteria from the mouth that gathers in the scummy biofilm on unbrushed teeth and is aspirated into the lungs. Patients face a higher risk if they lie flat or remain immobile for long periods, so NVHAP can also be prevented by elevating their heads and getting them out of bed more often.

According to the National Organization for NV-HAP Prevention, which was founded in 2020, this pneumonia infects about 1 in every 100 hospital patients and kills 15%-30% of them. For those who survive, the illness often extends their hospital stay by up to 15 days and makes it much more likely they will be readmitted within a month or transferred to an intensive care unit.

John McCleary, 83, of Millinocket, Maine, contracted a likely case of NVHAP in 2008 after he fractured his ankle in a fall and spent 12 days in rehabilitation at a hospital, said his daughter, Kathy Day, a retired nurse and advocate with the Patient Safety Action Network.

Mr. McCleary recovered from the fracture but not from pneumonia. Two days after he returned home, the infection in his lungs caused him to be rushed back to the hospital, where he went into sepsis and spent weeks in treatment before moving to an isolation unit in a nursing home.

He died weeks later, emaciated, largely deaf, unable to eat, and often “too weak to get water through a straw,” his daughter said. After contracting pneumonia, he never walked again.

“It was an astounding assault on his body, from him being here visiting me the week before his fall, to his death just a few months later,” Ms. Day said. “And the whole thing was avoidable.”

While experts describe NVHAP as a largely ignored threat, that appears to be changing.

Last year, a group of researchers – including Dr. Giuliano and Dr. Baker, plus officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Joint Commission – published a “call-to-action” research paper hoping to launch “a national health care conversation about NVHAP prevention.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Four years ago, when Dr. Karen Giuliano went to a Boston hospital for hip replacement surgery, she was given a pale-pink bucket of toiletries issued to patients in many hospitals. Inside were tissues, bar soap, deodorant, toothpaste, and, without a doubt, the worst toothbrush she’d ever seen.

“I couldn’t believe it. I got a toothbrush with no bristles,” she said. “It must have not gone through the bristle machine. It was just a stick.”

To most patients, a useless hospital toothbrush would be a mild inconvenience. But to Dr. Giuliano, a nursing professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, it was a reminder of a pervasive “blind spot” in U.S. hospitals: the stunning consequences of unbrushed teeth.

Hospital patients not getting their teeth brushed, or not brushing their teeth themselves, is believed to be a leading cause of hundreds of thousands of cases of pneumonia a year in patients who have not been put on a ventilator. Pneumonia is among the most common infections that occur in health care facilities, and a majority of cases are nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, or NVHAP, which kills up to 30% of those infected, Dr. Giuliano and other experts said.

But unlike many infections that strike within hospitals, the federal government doesn’t require hospitals to report cases of NVHAP. As a result, few hospitals understand the origin of the illness, track its occurrence, or actively work to prevent it, the experts said.

Many cases of NVHAP could be avoided if hospital staffers more dutifully brushed the teeth of bedridden patients, according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research papers. Instead, many hospitals often skip teeth brushing to prioritize other tasks and provide only cheap, ineffective toothbrushes, often unaware of the consequences, said Dr. Dian Baker, a Sacramento (Calif.) State nursing professor who has spent more than a decade studying NVHAP.

“I’ll tell you that today the vast majority of the tens of thousands of nurses in hospitals have no idea that pneumonia comes from germs in the mouth,” Dr. Baker said.

Pneumonia occurs when germs trigger an infection in the lungs. Although NVHAP accounts for most of the cases that occur in hospitals, it historically has not received the same attention as pneumonia tied to ventilators, which is easier to identify and study because it occurs among a narrow subset of patients.

NVHAP, a risk for virtually all hospital patients, is often caused by bacteria from the mouth that gathers in the scummy biofilm on unbrushed teeth and is aspirated into the lungs. Patients face a higher risk if they lie flat or remain immobile for long periods, so NVHAP can also be prevented by elevating their heads and getting them out of bed more often.

According to the National Organization for NV-HAP Prevention, which was founded in 2020, this pneumonia infects about 1 in every 100 hospital patients and kills 15%-30% of them. For those who survive, the illness often extends their hospital stay by up to 15 days and makes it much more likely they will be readmitted within a month or transferred to an intensive care unit.

John McCleary, 83, of Millinocket, Maine, contracted a likely case of NVHAP in 2008 after he fractured his ankle in a fall and spent 12 days in rehabilitation at a hospital, said his daughter, Kathy Day, a retired nurse and advocate with the Patient Safety Action Network.

Mr. McCleary recovered from the fracture but not from pneumonia. Two days after he returned home, the infection in his lungs caused him to be rushed back to the hospital, where he went into sepsis and spent weeks in treatment before moving to an isolation unit in a nursing home.

He died weeks later, emaciated, largely deaf, unable to eat, and often “too weak to get water through a straw,” his daughter said. After contracting pneumonia, he never walked again.

“It was an astounding assault on his body, from him being here visiting me the week before his fall, to his death just a few months later,” Ms. Day said. “And the whole thing was avoidable.”

While experts describe NVHAP as a largely ignored threat, that appears to be changing.

Last year, a group of researchers – including Dr. Giuliano and Dr. Baker, plus officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Veterans Health Administration, and the Joint Commission – published a “call-to-action” research paper hoping to launch “a national health care conversation about NVHAP prevention.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Individuals with a prior diagnosis of pneumonia were significantly more likely to develop chronic otitis media (COM) than were those without a history of pneumonia, based on data from a nationwide cohort study of more than 100,000 patients.

“Recently, middle ear diseases, including COM, have been recognized as respiratory tract diseases beyond the pathophysiological concepts of ventilation dysfunction, with recurrent infection that occurs from anatomically adjacent structures such as the middle ear, mastoid cavity, and eustachian tube,” but the potential link between pneumonia and chronic otitis media and adults in particular has not been examined, wrote Sung Kyun Kim, MD, of Hallym University, Dongtan, South Korea, and colleagues.

In a study recently published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers identified 23,436 adults with COM and 93,744 controls aged 40 years and older from a Korean health insurance database between 2002 and 2015.

The overall incidence of pneumonia in the study population was significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls (9.3% vs. 7.2%, P <.001). The odds ratios of pneumonia were significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls, and a history of pneumonia increased the odds of COM regardless of sex and across all ages.

Pneumonia was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis of pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes and underwent a chest x-ray or chest CT scan. Chronic otitis media was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis based on ICD-10 codes at least two times with one of the following conditions: chronic serous otitis media, chronic mucoid otitis media, other chronic nonsuppurative otitis media, unspecified nonsuppurative otitis media, chronic tubotympanic suppurative otitis media, chronic atticoantral suppurative otitis media, other chronic suppurative otitis media, or unspecified suppurative otitis media.

Age groups were divided into 5-year intervals, and patients were classified into income groups and rural vs. urban residence.

In a further sensitivity analysis, individuals who were diagnosed with pneumonia five or more times before the index date had a significantly higher odds ratio for COM compared with those with less than five diagnoses of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 1.34; P < .001).

Microbiome dysbiosis may explain part of the connection between pneumonia and COM, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Pathogens in the lungs can prompt changes in the microbiome dynamics, as might the use of antibiotics, they said. In addition, “Mucus plugging in the airway caused by pneumonia induces hypoxic conditions and leads to the expression of inflammatory markers in the eustachian tube and middle ear mucosa,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on microbiological cultures for antibiotic susceptibility, radiologic findings on the severity of pneumonia, results of pulmonary function tests, and hearing thresholds, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of the frequency of upper respiratory infections and antibiotic use due to lack of data, they said.

However, the results show an association between pneumonia diagnoses and increased incidence of COM, which suggests a novel perspective that “infection of the lower respiratory tract may affect the function of the eustachian tube and the middle ear to later cause COM,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with a prior diagnosis of pneumonia were significantly more likely to develop chronic otitis media (COM) than were those without a history of pneumonia, based on data from a nationwide cohort study of more than 100,000 patients.

“Recently, middle ear diseases, including COM, have been recognized as respiratory tract diseases beyond the pathophysiological concepts of ventilation dysfunction, with recurrent infection that occurs from anatomically adjacent structures such as the middle ear, mastoid cavity, and eustachian tube,” but the potential link between pneumonia and chronic otitis media and adults in particular has not been examined, wrote Sung Kyun Kim, MD, of Hallym University, Dongtan, South Korea, and colleagues.

In a study recently published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers identified 23,436 adults with COM and 93,744 controls aged 40 years and older from a Korean health insurance database between 2002 and 2015.

The overall incidence of pneumonia in the study population was significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls (9.3% vs. 7.2%, P <.001). The odds ratios of pneumonia were significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls, and a history of pneumonia increased the odds of COM regardless of sex and across all ages.

Pneumonia was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis of pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes and underwent a chest x-ray or chest CT scan. Chronic otitis media was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis based on ICD-10 codes at least two times with one of the following conditions: chronic serous otitis media, chronic mucoid otitis media, other chronic nonsuppurative otitis media, unspecified nonsuppurative otitis media, chronic tubotympanic suppurative otitis media, chronic atticoantral suppurative otitis media, other chronic suppurative otitis media, or unspecified suppurative otitis media.

Age groups were divided into 5-year intervals, and patients were classified into income groups and rural vs. urban residence.

In a further sensitivity analysis, individuals who were diagnosed with pneumonia five or more times before the index date had a significantly higher odds ratio for COM compared with those with less than five diagnoses of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 1.34; P < .001).

Microbiome dysbiosis may explain part of the connection between pneumonia and COM, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Pathogens in the lungs can prompt changes in the microbiome dynamics, as might the use of antibiotics, they said. In addition, “Mucus plugging in the airway caused by pneumonia induces hypoxic conditions and leads to the expression of inflammatory markers in the eustachian tube and middle ear mucosa,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on microbiological cultures for antibiotic susceptibility, radiologic findings on the severity of pneumonia, results of pulmonary function tests, and hearing thresholds, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of the frequency of upper respiratory infections and antibiotic use due to lack of data, they said.

However, the results show an association between pneumonia diagnoses and increased incidence of COM, which suggests a novel perspective that “infection of the lower respiratory tract may affect the function of the eustachian tube and the middle ear to later cause COM,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with a prior diagnosis of pneumonia were significantly more likely to develop chronic otitis media (COM) than were those without a history of pneumonia, based on data from a nationwide cohort study of more than 100,000 patients.

“Recently, middle ear diseases, including COM, have been recognized as respiratory tract diseases beyond the pathophysiological concepts of ventilation dysfunction, with recurrent infection that occurs from anatomically adjacent structures such as the middle ear, mastoid cavity, and eustachian tube,” but the potential link between pneumonia and chronic otitis media and adults in particular has not been examined, wrote Sung Kyun Kim, MD, of Hallym University, Dongtan, South Korea, and colleagues.

In a study recently published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers identified 23,436 adults with COM and 93,744 controls aged 40 years and older from a Korean health insurance database between 2002 and 2015.

The overall incidence of pneumonia in the study population was significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls (9.3% vs. 7.2%, P <.001). The odds ratios of pneumonia were significantly higher in the COM group compared with controls, and a history of pneumonia increased the odds of COM regardless of sex and across all ages.

Pneumonia was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis of pneumonia based on ICD-10 codes and underwent a chest x-ray or chest CT scan. Chronic otitis media was defined as when a patient had a diagnosis based on ICD-10 codes at least two times with one of the following conditions: chronic serous otitis media, chronic mucoid otitis media, other chronic nonsuppurative otitis media, unspecified nonsuppurative otitis media, chronic tubotympanic suppurative otitis media, chronic atticoantral suppurative otitis media, other chronic suppurative otitis media, or unspecified suppurative otitis media.

Age groups were divided into 5-year intervals, and patients were classified into income groups and rural vs. urban residence.

In a further sensitivity analysis, individuals who were diagnosed with pneumonia five or more times before the index date had a significantly higher odds ratio for COM compared with those with less than five diagnoses of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 1.34; P < .001).

Microbiome dysbiosis may explain part of the connection between pneumonia and COM, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Pathogens in the lungs can prompt changes in the microbiome dynamics, as might the use of antibiotics, they said. In addition, “Mucus plugging in the airway caused by pneumonia induces hypoxic conditions and leads to the expression of inflammatory markers in the eustachian tube and middle ear mucosa,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and lack of data on microbiological cultures for antibiotic susceptibility, radiologic findings on the severity of pneumonia, results of pulmonary function tests, and hearing thresholds, the researchers noted. Other limitations were the exclusion of the frequency of upper respiratory infections and antibiotic use due to lack of data, they said.

However, the results show an association between pneumonia diagnoses and increased incidence of COM, which suggests a novel perspective that “infection of the lower respiratory tract may affect the function of the eustachian tube and the middle ear to later cause COM,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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