Recent Posts

April 25th, 2021

The Decision on the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine Surprised Me — Here’s Why

The “pause” on the one-shot Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine is over. Based on a further review of safety data that occurred on April 23, both the CDC and the FDA said the vaccine may resume here in the U.S., provided the label includes a warning about a serious, but rare, side effect — thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).

I confess this decision surprised me. My hunch was that they would advise limiting the vaccine in the U.S. to women older than 50, with no age criterion for men. Instead, it’s now available for all.

This was no doubt a tricky decision, one reflected in the 10-4 vote of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). When experts disagree, I find it useful to list those things we all can agree on:

  • These are not your typical blood clots. TTS bears a strong resemblance to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with low platelets and development of antibodies to platelet factor 4. This “consumptive coagulopathy” has distinctive clinical features, is challenging to manage, and should not be treated with heparin — which can worsen the disease.
  • The cases are very serious. Venous thrombotic events vary widely in severity; the clots in these TTS cases occurred in particularly bad anatomic locations, most commonly in the cerebral venous sinuses. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) can lead to permanent neurologic disability, require intensive care, or even be fatal. In the TTS cases, clots also occurred in other sites, and in the arterial system. From Friday’s ACIP meeting:
  • They are rare. Nearly 8 million people have received the vaccine, and 15 of these distinctive clotting events occurred, for a rate of around 1 case per 500,000 people vaccinated. Additional cases may come to light, and apparently, around 10 are under investigation.
  • The risk is higher in younger women. Thus far, all the cases occurring since the emergency use authorization (EUA) have been in women. The median age was 37 years (range 18–59). For women aged 18 to 49 years, the estimated TTS rate is approximately 1 per 140,000 doses — and potentially higher if more cases occur in this age group among the 10 or so being investigated. Plus, in hindsight, a 25-year-old man likely had a similar syndrome during the clinical trial.
  • They occurred shortly after the vaccine. Median time to symptom onset was 8 days (range 6–15 days).
  • Similar thrombotic events occurred with the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. This adverse effect is the primary reason some countries slowed the rollout of this vaccine globally or limited who should receive it. (The vaccine is not used in the U.S.) With the AstraZeneca vaccine, a broader demographic appears to be at risk. Both vaccines use an adenovirus vector strategy to deliver the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen.
  • No cases of TTS have yet occurred with the mRNA vaccines. While thrombotic events have been reported after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, none of the cases had low platelets or the other distinctive characteristics of TTS. Given the nearly 200 million doses of these vaccines already administered in the U.S. — with millions more globally — these are highly reassuring safety data.
  • The J&J vaccine has several favorable characteristics. As a one-shot vaccine with less stringent storage requirements than the mRNA vaccines, it theoretically would be easier to give to a broader — and sometimes disproportionately at-risk — population. Specifically cited in the ACIP meeting included the homeless, rural residents, people in prison, disabled, homebound, or those with limited access to healthcare.
  • We have a sufficient supply of mRNA vaccines to vaccinate all eligible adults in the United States. Given what India is going through right now, just writing this breaks my heart — but it’s true and must be considered in the risk calculation of using the J&J vaccine. Hence while the favorable characteristics of the J&J vaccine would make vaccinating the U.S. population easier, it may not be required.
  • COVID-19 case numbers are falling in most of the United States. Even Michigan, the state with the recent marked surge, is fortunately now showing a sharp decline in case numbers. Again, this is critical when thinking about the risk calculation for someone choosing whether to be vaccinated and when.

The process by which safety issues come to light with these vaccines is truly impressive. These rare events triggered a thorough investigation, one in full public view with all the data shared. That’s a real win.

But let’s now consider an otherwise healthy young woman who wants a COVID-19 vaccine.

Give the availability of the mRNA vaccines, the falling case numbers nationally (and hence her reduced risk of disease), and the rare — but extremely serious — side effect of TTS that might occur with the J&J vaccine, under what possible circumstances should the J&J vaccine be the recommended approach?

If it’s a matter of convenience, I’d say it’s worth spending the time educating about how to get the two shots and avoiding the small risk.

If it’s a matter of lack of mRNA vaccine availability, I’d say fix the supply issue or outline where an mRNA vaccine is available.

But now? It’s possible that this young healthy woman might end up getting the J&J vaccine. And while the odds are overwhelmingly in her favor that everything will be fine, in practice, this would be giving a vaccine with a recognized safety issue when two highly effective and safe alternatives exists.

And the warning? I worry about women who lack the medical literacy to fully understand it, or the cultural authority to question what is being offered to them, or the forthrightness to request alternatives — or all of the above.

And that can’t be right.

April 19th, 2021

Is It Time to Eliminate Outdoor Mask Mandates?

Louie checks out our local town policies.

I do the morning dog walk in our house. And every day, I put on a mask before going out, just as I have since March of last year.

As the data accumulate on the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, it’s definitely time to ask this question — why am I still doing this? After all, it’s just Louie and me — and even he’s wondering.

It’s generated some interesting dialogue between the two of us:

Why are you doing that? he asks me each morning. Who are you protecting?

Good questions, Louie!

It’s true, I’ll briefly pass an occasional person on the street or sidewalk. But they’re not going to get COVID from me, or the reverse. That’s not how this works.

Even if I, as a fully vaccinated person, were asymptomatically carrying SARS-CoV-2 — already exceedingly unlikely on any given day — the virus would be rapidly diluted by the extraordinary ventilation conferred by just being outside.

And while the vaccines aren’t 100% protective of me — nothing is, sports fans — they are amazingly good. Got to love these recent CDC data, interpreted by indefatigable COVID-19 optimist Dr. Monica Gandhi:

With COVID-19, the most intensely studied viral respiratory tract infection in over a century, it’s worth emphasizing that clear documentation of outdoor transmission has been a challenge — and it’s not for lack of trying. In such rare cases, it’s often impossible to disentangle the indoor activities accompanying the outdoor events as contributing to the risk.

Or the people were crowded together outside, facing each other and interacting. Or exercising together and breathing heavily.

Transmissions do not take place between solitary individuals going for a walk, transiently passing each other on the street, a hiking trail, or a jogging track. That biker who whizzes by without a mask poses no danger to us, at least from a resipiratory virus perspective. Read more about the safety of being outside in this excellent piece by Shannon Palus, which also questions the need for masking outside — generating quite the heated commentary, as I anticipate this post will also.

But what about the community solidarity engendered by wearing a mask outside in public? Isn’t this worth something? A way of showing that I’m 100% part of Team Mask?

Maybe — certainly there’s a strong component of this messaging among the highly adherent mask wearers here in Boston. But this performative aspect of outdoor mask-wearing has a downside, too.

You might think you need to wear a mask while walking me in the morning to set a good example for others, said Louie the other day.

But really you might be misleading people about how the virus is transmitted.

Wise words, dog of mine! (He’s very articulate.)

Here’s a bold proposal — let’s make public policy based on our best understanding of the science of SARS-CoV-2 transmission:

Dangerous — crowded indoor spaces with poor ventilation, in particular with unmasked individuals talking, shouting, singing. Wear a well-fitted mask until case numbers are down and more people are vaccinated.

Safe — outdoors, especially while distanced. Masks only needed for lengthy interactions with others at close distance.

Some might wonder if this is too nuanced a message — the “people will get confused” argument.

Give them more credit than that, says Louie. If I can understand it — and I’m a dog — so can they.

He’s got a point, it’s not that hard. We’ve learned so much since the terrifying days early in the pandemic — why not share what we’ve learned and eliminate mandates that no longer make sense?

To wrap up, Zeynep Tufekci kindly shared her thoughts on this issue. She’s been fighting something she’s called “beach scolding” for over a year now. It’s when public health officials and the media shame people or even worse prohibit outdoor activities — when they should be encouraging them since they’re so much safer. Examples — the dreaded yellow police tape outside the park or on the benches, the swings removed from the playground, the beaches and lakeside trails closed.

In a way, it relates to outdoor mask mandates:

Sometimes people invoke the precautionary principle or what’s the downside argument to argue for universal masking outdoors. However, the precautionary principle is not necessarily appropriate after a whole year of epidemiological data showing little to no transmission outdoors outside of sustained close contact: precaution is what we do when we don’t know the answer, not something we invoke to continue doing things on autopilot.

Plus, there is a very important downside that’s not being considered sufficiently: by mandating or normalizing masks outdoors at all times, we are miscommunicating about the real risk factors—indoors, especially if they are crowded and poorly-ventilated—which means that even a full year after the pandemic, people are not being properly informed about where and how they should increase their vigilance.

It’s fine to tell people to continue wearing masks outside especially if they are unvaccinated and are about to engage in a sustained interaction at close distance, especially if it involves higher aerosol emitting activities like talking, yelling or singing, but it’s time for the excessive masking outdoors, and especially mandates, to go.

Bravo. Looking forward to seeing more outdoor faces soon.

April 11th, 2021

Poll: Will This Video Change Anyone’s Mind About Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine?

Watch this video. It’s a minute long:

I first heard about the video because, as mentioned before, I play in a regular poker game with a group of smart friends. Naturally, the in-person game, which started sometime in the early days of the 21th century, has been on hold since March of last year. One can barely imagine any activity more efficient for respiratory virus transmission than a bunch of people clustered around a small table, playing cards, chatting, eating snacks, and consuming beverages.

But we still play online, which one of our players estimates is approximately 64.7% as fun as the face-to-face game. So it’s quite appropriate that the video was sent around to all of us this past week after one of our online games. It came from Mo, a skillful player whose name sounds like it’s right out of a movie based on a tricky poker hustle.

I don’t think he expected this response from Mark (another poker expert) or me (a relative hack):

Mark:  Just a big tech conspiracy.
Me:  I can feel the microchip right under my biceps muscle.
Mo:  Such cynics! Of course advertising by definition is supposed to manipulate you. But what’s wrong with being made to feel good about something good?

I agree this video is brilliant advertising and did make me feel good. It’s downright wonderful. The stark simplicity (always an enticing strength of a Google search), the music, the sound effects, the use of different languages, and, most importantly, the broad range of activities put on hold now possible again with vaccination — they all work together to convey a powerful and moving message.

No wonder some of the YouTube commenters wrote that they cried while watching it.

But will it convince anyone to get the vaccine who is otherwise not doing so?

Not so sure about that, but suspect not many. Why?

Our vaccine-eligible population, at least here in the United States, falls into various groups:

National Library of Congress

1. Most want the vaccine. They can’t wait. They signed up the very first day they were eligible. Or drove long distances to find a pharmacy that had extra shots. They watched the vaccine criteria in their states closely, hoping they and their loved ones would be candidates. Before then, they dropped in at end of the day at vaccination sites, eager for leftovers. When finally getting the vaccine, they were overwhelmed with emotion, gratitude, and relief. Maybe they took a vaccine selfie. Then they helped others navigate the process.

In short, this group loves this one-minute video. (So did all the poker players, for the record — including Mark.)

2. Some are on the fence because of a medical reason. They worry the vaccines are too new. That they might make their underlying autoimmune disease worse. Or they have a history of terrifying, life-threatening allergies to medications and maybe even vaccines. Or they are pregnant, or planning pregnancy. Or they had a rare, very severe side effect in the past to another vaccine, and worry these will do the same.

(All us ID doctors have been asked about people with Guillain-Barre syndrome after a flu shot and whether they can safely receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We say it’s safe — at least as far as we know.)

These are all legitimate concerns, for which there are no easy answers. People in this group might find the video well done, but it’s unlikely to alter their decision-making.

3. Some won’t get the vaccine since they come from marginalized groups. They might know about how the medical community excluded them from research in the past. Or conducted unethical studies. Or treated them poorly in a clinical context, so they inherently distrust our messages. Or they don’t speak English, and no culturally appropriate vaccine information is available. Or they have limited access to regular medical care.

I suspect this group won’t even see this video — where is it being distributed? — or if they do, they will distrust it.

4. Some await herd immunity, so they believe if they wait long enough, they won’t need to get the vaccine — ever. They are analogous to the parents who seek out “non-medical exemptions” for their children so that their kids won’t have to get the recommended childhood immunizations.

This group — particularly selfish, I should add — will watch this video and hope that it will convince others to get the shots.

5. Some are anti-vaxxers, or conspiracy theorists, or political extremists, or some combination of these factors. They will see in this video various hidden messages proving that the vaccines allow 5G mobile networks to take over their brainwaves.

I look at these five groups, and wonder — is this video going to sway anyone from Groups 2-5?

Will it, as cleverly put by Tom — another poker mate — “move the needle?”

What do you think? And why?

Will the Google video convince a significant number of people to get a COVID-19 vaccine?

View Results

April 4th, 2021

More Excellent News on COVID-19 Vaccines — and Baseball Gets a Policy Right

A Joyful Easter, 1900. New York Public Library.

Big announcement this week from CDC, saying that people who have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 can safely travel.

Of course many didn’t need this permission, as data increasingly show the vaccines not only powerfully protect you, but protect others. But having official endorsement from our cautious federal health agency surely means the data are especially strong.

For the record, it’s worth highlighting two recent bits of extremely good news on the vaccine front:

  1. The Pfizer vaccine continued to provide high-level protection at least 6 months after immunization. Over 90% effective in preventing any symptomatic disease, and 100% in preventing severe disease. Why is this important? The clinical trial started during the summer of 2020, which means these data take us through the winter surge in cases that occurred globally. Furthermore, the vaccine was just as effective in South Africa, where the more transmissible B.1.351 variant is highly prevalent.
  2. Prospectively collected data from the CDC show that people who received the mRNA vaccines were 90% less likely to get infected. The study included nearly 4000 front-line workers who were tested regularly by RT-PCR, even without symptoms, and confirms similar data collected in the United Kingdom and Israel, also with large sample sizes. Here’s why these data are important — fewer people with infection means fewer who can infect somebody else:

Many (including me) have always thought that it would be highly unusual if these powerfully effective vaccines failed to reduce transmission risk — now we have multiple lines of evidence that indeed they do. It may not be 100% — nothing is — but it’s a lot. To quote Dr. Neil Stone, “it takes a special kind of pessimist to believe that Covid vaccines won’t significantly reduce transmission of virus.”

We don’t want to be that kind of pessimist.

Why should we stress the highly favorable nature of the vaccine effectiveness data, both for personal health and the health of others? This will help many of those who are on the fence about whether to get vaccinated make the right decision — which is emphatically to get a COVID-19 vaccine. This will become increasingly important when supply of the vaccines exceeds the demand, and any adult will be eligible for immunization.

But what if this isn’t enough? Should we proceed with vaccine mandates in certain settings? Especially in high-risk transmission jobs, such as healthcare, where vaccination will both protect our patients and make the work environment safer for others working in the same setting?

As noted in this excellent concise review entitled “Should healthcare institutions mandate SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for staff?”, the question raises several challenging ethical questions. The piece covers the pros and cons, ultimately concluding that “mandates may be ethically permissible in select circumstances.” It also notes that from a practical perspective today, the current “emergency use authorization” of the vaccines makes them technically still experimental, hence a mandatory immunization is “legally and ethically problematic.”

I would argue, however, that with the pandemic still very much ongoing — COVID-19 cases are up substantially over the past few weeks — individual company policies can strongly encourage vaccination by making it the ticket to greater on-the-job benefits, flexibility, and freedom.

A carrot, not a stick.

An example? Here’s what Major League Baseball did, in a move this ID doctor and rabid baseball fan 100% supports:

Major League Baseball is getting back to normal. Players can now travel with their families. They can go to restaurants. They can play cards and move around on planes and buses. They can use whirlpools and saunas in the clubhouse. And they no longer are required to wear a mask on the bench or in the bullpen. However, teams are first required to have at least 85% of their players and staff fully vaccinated … Plus, these new protocols only apply to those who have been fully vaccinated.

In other words, if you and enough of your teammates agree to get vaccinated, here’s what you get in return — freedom! It’s analogous to CDC saying that fully vaccinated people can safely travel.

Despite the increase in cases, the pathway out of the pandemic looks brighter all the time. And it’s these amazing vaccines that will lead us there.

Spread the word.

March 21st, 2021

If You Want Thoughtful and Accurate Predictions About COVID-19, Zeynep Tufekci Has the Answers

Pufferfish, from United States Exploring Expedition (1838-1842)

The future ain’t what it used to be, said one very wise man.

He might have also said, It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future, but alas we’ll have to credit that profundity to someone else.

Still, both these statements embody the insurmountable difficulty of making accurate predictions — a problem starkly evident during pandemic times. How many times have we watched people give conflicting views of when, or how, this thing is going to play out, even in the short term? 

Two recent examples come to mind. Dr. Mike Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, repeatedly warns of an additional surge this spring as more contagious variants take hold. This headline calls him “Dr Doom.”

On the flip side, Dr. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins wrote in mid-February that we’ll likely be mostly done with COVID-19 in Aprilwhich, if I’m doing the math, starts 11 days from now. They can’t both be right.

Our ability to make accurate predictions is highly flawed, dependent on innumerable forces we can only begin to understand. 

We base these predictions on our background, our education, our knowledge base, plus an unconscious force that sends them in various directions — optimistic or pessimistic, confident or timid, contrary or mainstream.

The bold ones get the most attention, especially if backed by impressive credentials. If Larry Summers says we’re heading into ruinous economic territory with the stimulus package, who am I to question him? Or Janet Yellen, who predicts the exact opposite?

Enter Zeynep Tufekci — sociologist, computer programmer, and Associate Professor at University of North Carolina. You might expect an epidemiologist, or infectious diseases specialist, or virologist to have the best record in laying out the most likely way forward as COVID-19 continues its march around the globe, now 15 months in. But again and again I have found hers to be among the most logical voices, mostly in pieces published in The Atlantic and The New York Times.

And importantly, I’m far from the only one to hold this view.

Is it her diverse educational and vocational background? The fact that she’s a true “citizen of the world,” having lived in multiple places? That she works really, really hard to get things right? That’s she’s also wicked smart, to coin the Bostonian phrase to describe the smartest person in the room?

Probably all of the above. 

Zeynep kindly joined me recently on this Open Forum Infectious Diseases podcast to discuss how she ended up in her interesting current position, and her approach to COVID-19 — how we missed the mark for well over a month on the seriousness of the problem, our missteps on masks, the continued penchant for “beach scolding,” how we undersell the vaccines, and the general timidity of the biomedical community in questioning authority.

And yes, she finishes by speculating how this might end. 

Highly recommended.

Transcript here. Also available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.

March 14th, 2021

Really Rapid Review — CROI 2021 Virtual

For a few years in the early 2010s, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) — in my opinion our premiere HIV scientific meeting — covered almost as many hepatitis C clinical trials as those on HIV. Or at least it seemed that way.

This made sense at the time — the startling success of non-interferon-based HCV treatments made for exciting news, and rapid progress. Here’s what I wrote in 2013 in another patented, copyrighted, and trademarked CROI Really Rapid Review™, for which NEJM Journal Watch receives many millions of dollars in royalties:

The results of the sofosbuvir and ledipasvir study — 100% response in both naives and prior null responders — provided one of the more exciting clinical trial results I’ve seen in years, small sample size notwithstanding.

Remember those days? Well, this CROI had barely any HCV at all, a sign of progress.

(And I was kidding about the royalties, in case you were wondering.)

Of course, in 2021 we are in the midst of a pandemic, so it’s not surprising that this CROI had plenty of COVID-19 studies, both on COVID-19 alone and on the combination of HIV and COVID-19. Here are some highlights, starting with HIV, then the HIV/COVID-19 studies, and then some interesting COVID-19 alone papers.

The links are to the presented abstracts, which requires a conference account (at least it does today) — however, as with other HIV meetings, plenty of the presented material appears on the invaluable NATAP page.

You’ll note I started and finished this post mentioning hepatitis C studies — which due to our success in treatment now have a very small footprint at CROI. Let’s hope the same happens to COVID-19 in the not-so-distant future!

And since this CROI was supposed to be Chicago and bring in people from all over the country (and the world), here’s a wonderful tour around North American accents, with of course a stop in the land of da Bears — right around 3’40”.

 

March 7th, 2021

Exactly One Year Ago, a Memorable Dinner Before a Memorable Year

Feb 23, 2020.

On March 7, 2020, right before CROI here in Boston, a bunch of us ID types planned to get together for a pre-conference dinner. A mixture of Bostonians and out-of-towners who hadn’t seen each other for a while. A chance to catch up before our busiest (and most important) scientific meeting.

What happened?

One person landed in Boston, and promptly got the next flight back to Los Angeles.

Another canceled his flight and never left home. A shame, too, since he was bringing his new partner (whom I still haven’t met). I hear she’s really fun and interesting.

One had to stay home due to a no-travel ruling issued for all his faculty. (Those edicts had not yet come from Harvard, but would a week later.)

A fourth had arrived early for the conference, but was so busy setting up the now “virtual” CROI that dinner for her was out of the question.

And of course, attendees from Europe (especially) already had pulled out of the conference en masse.

You get the idea.

Our numbers for dinner were substantially down, but we still assembled with (mostly) locals. Indoors. Windows closed. It’s winter here in early March. Plenty of hand-washing and, befitting the fomite-centric perspective at the time about SARS-CoV-2 transmission, extra use of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer — something I’d never purchased before.

That evening was filled with lots of discussion about the Biogen conference. About China, Italy, Spain, and Iran, and what was undoubtedly coming our way soon. About our frustration with the lack of COVID-19 testing — we ID doctors spent all of February complaining about that, with no answers coming from anywhere. Just painful silence.

And, yes, lots of anxiety.

Now, as CROI starts up again — virtually, of course — I think back to that night. A dinner indoors with friends and colleagues, possible a year ago today but unimaginable since, could now again happen in our (fully vaccinated) future.

Not saying I know when it will happen — just that it could. Hope.

Wow, it’s been a memorable year.

February 28th, 2021

Another COVID-19 Vaccine — and Barney, Explained

Busy few days on the COVID-19 vaccine front, specifically related to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson.

February 26, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee reviewed the data on the vaccine, voting unanimously that the benefits outweighed the risks.

February 27, the FDA granted the single-dose vaccine emergency use authorization.

And February 28-March 1, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets to discuss what recommendations to make about its use.

This means doses can reach us as early as this week.

What is this vaccine? Ad26.COV2.S is a recombinant replication-incompetent human adenovirus serotype 26 vector encoding a full-length, stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antigen. 

In other words, quite different from the mRNA vaccines in current use, and hence requiring a whole new section to the NEJM Covid-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions.

That’s a ton of work (for me), which is why this week’s post is so short.

But before I go, here’s the inspiration for citing an anthropomorphic dinosaur as my “animal spirit”, as requested by Dr. Gabriel Vilchez:

My friend Janet — a brilliant child psychiatrist — used to tell her pre-teen daughter why she couldn’t get a tattoo.

The reason?

Imagine if I had let you get a tattoo when you were 4 years old. You’d have Barney the Dinosaur on your body permanently. Who knows whether what you love now will be something you will love the rest of your life.

This was a highly effective message, one I’ll never forget.

February 21st, 2021

Why Are COVID-19 Case Numbers Dropping?

We don’t know. That part is easy.

Also easy is that case numbers really are falling — it’s not just reduced testing — and it’s happening pretty much everywhere.

Urban areas and rural. Red states and blue. Places with broad vaccine rollouts and those with hardly any. North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Even countries with the B.1.1.7 variant.

Look:

Source: 91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/, downloaded 21 Feb 2021.

Let’s round up some theories:

1. Seasonality. An attractive hypothesis — coronavirus infections pre-SARS-CoV-2 definitely show a seasonal pattern.

And various viral diseases go through communities synchronized with the seasons, especially when school starts or the weather gets colder. Any pediatrician will tell you that.

Note that the term “seasonality” has always been a bit misleading — it refers to infections peaking within seasons, not throughout them. Think of influenza, how sometimes we have an early, sometimes a late seasonal peak in the winter.

The problem with this seasonality theory is that the seasons are flipped in the southern hemisphere. And didn’t cases surge over the summer in many southern U.S. states?

2. Herd immunity. Nearly 28 million Americans have had a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis reported to the CDC. This represents only a fraction of the true cases — especially the mild or asymptomatic ones — and the CDC estimates that only 1 in 4.6 infections are reported. That could bring us up to half the US population with some degree of natural immunity to infection.

Even as of mid-January, the CDC put the actual case numbers at over 80 million, and certainly it’s higher than that now. And note that in some regions, the actual case counts might be even higher — 5 to 20 times higher, according to one recent publication.

3. Behavior. We know much better now how this virus is transmitted. Avoiding crowds and indoor spaces with poor ventilation — and wearing masks — reduce the risk. But has our behavior actually followed suit?

The holidays are behind us. The Super Bowl was lousy. Not many parties for the Australian Open tennis finals. Spring Break hasn’t happened yet.

One compelling hypothesis, related to herd immunity, is that the people least likely to follow infection control advice — or unable to follow it based on work or living situation — already have had COVID-19 and hence are immune.

The others, not yet infected, watched cases surge in December and January and continue to hunker down and stay safe — or again, have the luxury of staying safe. They might be especially vigilant now that a vaccine is in their not-too-distant future — you know, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the light at the end of the tunnel, or the Holy Grail at the end of the Monty Python movie.

(Sorry about that.)

4. Vaccines. The world is vaccinating like crazy. Demand is off the charts. And in most places, we’re targeting the people most likely to have symptomatic or severe disease.

Plus, the data increasingly suggest that the vaccines reduce not just disease, but also the likelihood of transmission — they reduce infections overall (uninfected people can’t transmit), and those with infection have lower viral loads. 

While the vaccine rollout is not yet broad enough to explain the case number drop on its own, it might be contributing. It certainly could be playing a role in Israel.

5. The virus. Maybe the virus is doing us a favor and becoming less virulent over time. Perhaps some of these variants — if not B.1.1.7 — in order to gain the ability to transmit, also cause less severe disease.

Take the virus’s perspective — yes, think like a virus — and how this would be evolutionarily beneficial. More mild cases, more chance to spread its genetic material to other susceptible hosts. That’s all viruses care about, right?

6. It’s a gemish. This brings us to the most likely explanation for the drop in cases, a gemish — Yiddish for a mixture of things. (It’s pronounced “ga-mish”, in case you want to try it out on your own.)

It could be all of the above explanations, in various proportions, and different in various regions — plus things no one has considered.

And the uncertainty about why cases are dropping again hearkens back to this great H.L Mencken quotation, which over time has morphed into this profound statement:

Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible — and wrong.

I stress the importance of being humble about not knowing why the cases are dropping simply because reliance on one of these factors over another could get us into trouble. For example, this week Dr. Marty Makary, writing in the Wall Street Journal, posited that we are already close to herd immunity, making this bold prediction:

There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection. As more people have been infected, most of whom have mild or no symptoms, there are fewer Americans left to be infected. At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life.

Warning — if anyone tells you with confidence that they know precisely why cases are dropping, and that they have an accurate crystal ball showing that by April we’ll be safely out of this pandemic — please view it with the appropriate scientific skepticism it deserves.

Look, we can hope this optimistic prediction is correct — we all want that. April isn’t far away, we’ll know soon.

But if there’s one thing a pandemic from a new human disease teaches us, it’s that there’s a lot we don’t know.

February 15th, 2021

Time to Fix the HIV Testing Algorithm — and Here’s How to Do It

Photo by Den Harrson on Unsplash.

Remember the revised HIV testing algorithm that debuted in 2014? The one that was supposed to solve all our problems?

First, it included a “highly sensitive” screening test that started with a “4th Generation” combination antibody/antigen test. This decreased the window period between acquiring HIV and having a positive test, thanks to the antigen. Great!

(These “generation” analogies sure are common in medicine. Is there a line of inheritance? A royal family? Some black sheep?)

Second, it retired the HIV Western blot as the confirmation test, and substituted a “differentiation assay”, a test that distinguishes between HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies. This test is cheaper, faster, more sensitive, and automated, many advantages over the Western blot — may the latter R.I.P, it served us well for many years.

Hooray! All problems solved. A highly accurate diagnostic test in ID just got even better.

Well … not quite. The algorithm improved, but a major problem remained — what does it mean when a highly sensitive fourth-generation test comes back positive, but the differentiation antibody assay is negative?

In graphic form, this:

These indeterminate results are so frequent that it motivates by far the most common question we ID doctors receive about HIV testing — and was the subject of one of the most popular pre-pandemic posts ever on this site.

The problem is that these results represent two clinical states that are diametrically opposite:

  1. Acute HIV — a person who recently acquired HIV, and is still in the “window period” before antibody develops. Remember, the differentiation assay is an antibody test. It takes a while to turn positive, typically 2-4 weeks.
  2. False-positive HIV screen — a person who doesn’t have HIV at all.

In most clinical settings, the second of these (the false-positives) greatly outnumber the acute HIV cases. But we still have to bring back the patient to rule out acute HIV.

Which is a pain, and creates several more “worry days” before there is diagnostic certainty.

Ah, but what if you could just do an HIV RNA assay — a viral load — as the confirmatory test? And potentially not have to bring the patient back in at all?

Such a strategy is now feasible using one of the HIV viral load assays, the Aptima® HIV-1 Quant Dx. It’s the first quantitative viral load test that is also approved for diagnosis of HIV. Off a serum sample sent for HIV screening, the lab can run a qualitative HIV viral load with this assay, with results as follows:

  • Non-reactive for HIV-1 RNA, or
  • Reactive for HIV-1 RNA

The lab can detect whether the reactive test was < 30, between 30-10 million copies/mL, or >10 million — but the package insert says it won’t report those ranges, since the test isn’t approved this way.

(I should mention here that long-time HIV testing guru Bernie Branson says that says that the assay can report an actual number off of serum, albeit one that is likely lower than we get from plasma. Which makes us wonder whether a plasma sample can be collected for HIV screening, and reflexed to the accurate quantitative viral load — the subject of a collaborative modeling study led by my colleague Dr. Emily Hyle.)

With the HIV RNA as the confirmatory test, the vast majority of reactive HIV screens could quickly be resolved — a non-reactive result would be all but 100% reassurance that the screening test was a false-positive. And a reactive result would mean that person has HIV, and should start ART.

The differentiation assay will still be run if the HIV RNA is negative, as it will determine whether a person is either an HIV controller (has HIV with an undetectable viral load), or has HIV-2. But both are pretty darn rare.

So let’s go back to the confirmatory HIV RNA being reactive. Would this be sufficient information to start treatment, or would clinicians still want to collect a baseline quantitative result, then start ART?

I wondered about this, so here’s a little poll:

A solid majority would still want this quantitative result, even while acknowledging it’s unlikely to change most initial treatment strategies. Here’s one of the best reasons why from Dr. Hana Akselrod:

Patients have mentioned the emotional impact of seeing the VL number come down by orders of magnitude, so that is now part of my motivational interview. Then we segue into U=U.

I agree!

Plus, HIV experts will note that two initial regimens — DTG/3TC and tenofovir/FTC/RPV — also have upper limit viral load thresholds that exclude them as options. (For these two, it’s 500,000 and 100,000, respectively.)

However, from a medical perspective, knowing the precise quantitative viral load usually would fall more into the “nice to know” than “need to know” category.

I’d bring the person back for a resistance genotype (another “nice to know” test) and a plasma quantitative viral load, and start ART (generally bictegravir/FTC/TAF or dolutegravir plus tenofovir/FTC) awaiting the results of these tests.

To summarize, it makes all kinds of sense to use an HIV RNA as the confirmatory test after a reactive HIV Ag/Ab screening test. It will reduce both “worry days” for those who test negative and speed up the time to starting HIV therapy for those who test positive.

Even better? Collect a plasma sample for the HIV screening test, and then use that for a precise quantitative viral load if the screen is reactive.

Now when can we make this change?

And since I haven’t featured a video in a while, how about this one, sent to me by a noted (but now retired) food journalist? How can you resist Weird Stuff in a Can?

We hope you enjoyed this week’s break from relentless 24/7 COVID-19 coverage. Have to mix things up a bit. Thank you for your understanding.

HIV Information: Author Paul Sax, M.D.

Paul E. Sax, MD

Contributing Editor

NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases

Biography | Disclosures | Summaries

Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.