An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
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.
- In the NADIA study, second-line therapy with dolutegravir was non-inferior to darunavir-ritonavir, and tenofovir/FTC non-inferior to ZDV/3TC. This beautifully done randomized clinical trial included patients with extensive NRTI resistance — lots of K65R plus M184V. Though conducted in Africa, it has lessons for us all, including: 1) residual activity of NRTIs even with high-level resistance; 2) imprecision of consensus interpretations of genotype tests, 3) no need for ZDV in those with K65R (phew), and 4) the need to monitor for INSTI resistance — even though it’s rare (just 4 cases out of 235 randomized to DTG), it has major clinical implications.
- In a large, US-based clinical cohort of people with advanced HIV disease, BIC/FTC/TAF was the three-drug regimen least likely to be discontinued. Also, a higher proportion had viral suppression than on boosted darunavir. These two strategies are being directly compared in the ongoing LAPTOP study in this very population. Speaking of people with advanced HIV disease …
- A cohort of 912 patients starting ART with various regimens favored initial integrase-based treatment over regimens with NNRTIs or PIs. Benefits were lower discontinuation rates and mortality. And more on this population …
- In a small (n=101) randomized trial in people with CD4 < 100, ABC/3TC/DTG had fewer drug discontinuations than ABC/3TC plus darunavir/ritonavir. Bacterial translocation was also lower with the DTG-based regimen. Note that higher rates of discontinuation of PI-based regimens have been observed before in patients with advanced disease. Speaking of this DTG versus DRV comparison …
- In an open-label randomized trial (n=306) in treatment-naive patients, DRV/c/FTC/TAF did not meet non-inferiority versus ABC/3TC/DTG. In other words, it was not noninferior — now you can show off to your statistician friends by using that double-negative language. Notably, weight gain was a bit more with DRV than DTG. (Shrugs.)
- In treatment-naive studies of BIC/FTC/TAF and DTG plus either TAF/FTC or ABC/3TC, viral suppression was still very high, even with transmitted drug resistance. The investigators used retrospective baseline next-generation sequencing of PR, RT, and integrase, with a 15% cutoff. Importantly, pre-study standard genotyping that identified resistance to the NRTIs was exclusionary.
- Injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine given every 8 weeks remains non-inferior to injections every 4 weeks at week 96. The current approval in the U.S. is for the 4-week strategy; approval of the 8-week approach is expected soon.
- For those switching to DTG/3TC, having M184V detected more recently increased the risk of virologic failure. This was compared to those with no historical M184V, and those in whom it had been found more than 5 years previously. Of course, this begs the question — why switch to DTG/3TC with a known M184V? Despite the ongoing activity of 3TC, this is not how the DTG/3TC regimen was studied. I wouldn’t do it.
- In a clinical cohort, predictors of 10% or more weight gain after switching to integrase-based ART were being female, underweight/normal weight, prior non-INSTI treatment, and the TDF to TAF switch. There was no difference between different INSTIs, however.
- Integrase-based ART was associated with an excess risk of cardiovascular events — but only after the first 6 months of exposure. It’s an observational study, so we cannot determine causality (just as we couldn’t with the first abacavir CVD study). And how do we explain that the effect was only temporary?
- In a database analysis of over 34,000 people starting or switching to integrase-based ART, new-onset diabetes or hyperglycemia occurred in 2.5%. This was significantly higher than non-integrase-based ART, with dolutegravir carrying the highest risk. Bictegravir was not included (database stopped in 2018), and there was very little TAF use.
- For pregnant women starting ART during pregnancy, DTG + TAF/FTC, DTG + TDF/FTC, and EFV/TDF/FTC had comparable viral suppression at 50 weeks’ postpartum. Pregnancy outcomes favored the TAF arm of the study — will our guidelines be updated soon based on this trial?
- In that study, the women in the DTG + TAF/FTC arm gained the most weight. However, this weight gain was closest to the recommended weight gain during pregnancy and also associated with a lower risk for any adverse pregnancy outcome, suggesting that pregnant women treated with EFV/TDF/FTC don’t gain enough weight.
- When started late in pregnancy, dolutegravir achieved viral suppression more rapidly than EFV. In this randomized trial of 237 women, there were three in utero HIV transmissions in the DTG arm, and one post-partum transmission in the EFV arm.
- A 4-month daily regimen of rifapentine and moxifloxacin was noninferior to the standard 6-month regimen for tuberculosis treatment. The participants also received isoniazid and pyrazinamide for the first 8 weeks. Anything that shortens TB treatment is a real advance!
- In highly treatment-experienced patients, oral lenacapavir induced a 1.93 log viral load decline (vs. 0.29 in placebo) after 14 days when added to a failing regimen. At this point, treated patients switched to subcutaneous lenacapavir given every 6 months, along with an optimized background regimen. The study is ongoing (and includes a non-randomized arm), and 19/26 patients have viral suppression. Two experienced viral rebound with emergent resistance. Not much information about the background regimens used with this novel agent.
- The investigational NNRTI MK-8507 has a PK profile that supports once-weekly dosing. It will be paired with islatravir for treatment of HIV. The resistance profile is likely to be similar to doravirine.
- Further evaluation of daily versus on-demand PrEP with TDF/FTC shows a low incidence of HIV in both strategies. One wonders whether TAF/FTC would be this effective given on-demand — suspect it would be, but it has not been tested this way.
- Laboratory evaluation of cabotegravir PrEP failures in HPTN 083 was challenging. And that’s an understatement! The issue is that CAB delayed detection of infection using standard HIV testing algorithms (point-of-care antibody testing, standard 4th generation antigen/antibody tests). Also, a small number failed despite adequate adherence and measured CAB levels, with development of INSTI resistance. Should we be using viral load tests to monitor our patients on CAB-based PrEP? Likely yes.
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of long-acting CAB for PrEP suggested that it would not be cost-effective if priced similarly to cabotegravir-rilpivirine. Though CAB is more effective than generic TDF/FTC for HIV prevention, the estimated $17,000/year cost difference puts the cost-effectiveness ratio at more than $1 million per quality-adjusted life-year. A limitation of this analysis, of course, is that we don’t know yet what CAB for PrEP will cost!
- As both a pill and as a drug-eluting implant, islatravir moves forward as a long-acting PrEP option. The pill projects to be once-monthly; the implant could be yearly.
- In consecutive sampling of 1076 people with HIV (PWH) in Spain, 8.6% were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Those on TDF/FTC were less likely to test positive — even after controlling for underlying comorbidities (an adjustment not made in this group’s previously published paper).
- In a large national cohort with nearly 600,000 cases of COVID-19, PWH and solid organ transplant recipients were more likely to be hospitalized than controls. Both groups had a high burden of comorbidities — which increases the risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 for all groups, including those with HIV.
- A single infusion of bamlanivimab and etesevimab given to outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for severe disease reduced the risk of clinical progression (hospitalization or death). There were no deaths in the treatment arm, 10 in placebo. Viral load decline and clinical recovery were also faster with treatment.
- Compared to placebo, the oral antiviral molnupiravir reduced the proportion of patients who had positive SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures by day 5. Unusual endpoint, but the results do demonstrate an antiviral effect. Several phase 3 clinical trials are ongoing, both in the inpatient and outpatient setting.
- Banlanivimab was effective in preventing COVID-19 in skilled nursing facilities. Those who did get COVID-19 despite treatment had lower viral loads and more rapid resolution of symptoms compared to the placebo group. While vaccination will undoubtedly be the mainstay of preventive strategies for COVID-19, in certain settings monoclonal antibodies may have a role.
- In another study of COVID-19 prevention, casirivimab plus imdevimab given subcutaneously to asymptomatic household contacts of active cases prevented 100% of symptomatic infections. Among those who did acquire COVID-19, viral loads were lower and PCR positivity was of shorter duration compared to placebo. Note the subcutaneous route of administration in this study, as it obviated the need for IV access — a big advance given the difficulty of arranging these treatments under the current Emergency Use Authorization.
- For 23 patients with refractory COVID-19 due to B-cell deficiency, convalescent plasma led to clinical recovery in 20. This population — receiving rituximab or similar anti-CD20 agents — has proven particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, often with prolonged symptoms and persistently high levels of virus.
- Treatment of hepatitis C with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir achieved cure in 95% of patients with minimal monitoring. And I mean minimal! (The study was called “MINMON”.) This single-arm study with 399 participants dispensed all tablets for a 12-week course at entry, had no on-treatment laboratory monitoring, and had just one week 22 visit to assess for cure (SVR). Aside from two phone contacts for adherence monitoring, that was it — amazing.
- Didn’t see all the plenaries or invited talks — attending a virtual conference can be strangely exhausting — but among those I did see, can highly recommend Dr. Shahin Lockman on HIV treatment in pregnancy, Dr. Jose Arribas on dual versus triple ART, and Linda-Gail Bekker on long-acting options for HIV prevention. Bravo!
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
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:
— Paul Sax (@PaulSaxMD) February 27, 2021
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:
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
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:
- 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.
- 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:
Hey #IDtwitter — if the HIV testing algorithm went like this:
1) HIV Ag/Ab screen – Reactive
2) HIV RNA confirmation – Reactive for HIV RNA (range 30-10 million)
Would you still send a quantitative VL before starting ART? Why or why not? @EmilyHyle @Hologic— Paul Sax (@PaulSaxMD) February 13, 2021
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.
February 7th, 2021
Does Taking Vitamin D Prevent or Treat COVID-19?
Vitamin D supplementation — critical in prevention and treatment of COVID-19?
Or does it do nothing — except further enrich the vitamin and supplements industry, which is worth more than 100 billion dollars?
The challenge is figuring out which of these is the truth, and after several weeks of thinking about the issue, I find it’s far from straightforward — with many strong (and conflicting) opinions held by lots of smart people.
I waded into these choppy waters a couple of months ago with this post after seeing a pre-print of a negative vitamin D study:
Low vitamin D levels may correlate with worse outcomes in many diseases.
But supplementing does not necessarily improve outcomes. In fact, it almost never does.
(Still waiting for a truly convincing study in any infection.)
Lather, rince, repeat.https://t.co/RlqpSCPlRC
— Paul Sax (@PaulSaxMD) December 8, 2020
You can tell what my “priors” were on this research question. Most studies of vitamin supplementation in all diseases have ended with negative results — it’s really quite remarkable the sheer number — and in some medical problems the vitamin treatment arm actually does worse.
For vitamin D specifically, here’s a list of the negative randomized clinical trials done just in the past couple of years summarized by NEJM Journal Watch:
- Prenatal supplementation and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children
- Falls in older adults
- A range of physical and cognitive outcomes in adults older than 70
- Macular degeneration
- Bone density (this one surprised me)
- Childhood asthma
- Preventing depression in adults 50 and older
- Preventing TB in children
- Outcomes in critical illness
- Diabetes-related kidney function
- Bone density (again!)
For each of these disease areas, observational studies found an association between low vitamin D levels and poor outcomes, with a mechanistic explanation of why that might be, and how such adverse outcomes could be reversed with supplements.
But alas, all of the randomized trials were negative — no significant benefit. Not only that, the study on falls in older adults and one of the bone density studies actually showed worse outcomes with higher doses — never a good trend.
But I quickly learned that despite these negative studies, my skeptical view about vitamin D and COVID-19 is far from universal.
Indeed, the response to the post was surprisingly brisk, and quite polarized — some agreeing with the post that “association is not causation — basic principles.”
Others criticized the study design, in particular the eligibility criteria (too sick) and dosing strategy (daily dosing would be better). Someone sent me this hour-long video, a tour-de-force graphical explanation of how vitamin D is critical for prevention and treatment of COVID-19; another person sent this “Roll Call” of credible experts calling for vitamin D treatment.
Then a physician I know well from teaching together (a primary care doctor) sent me a 2017 meta-analysis of randomized trials on vitamin D supplementation to prevent viral respiratory tract infections. The studies included are mostly of good quality, and the aggregate results suggest a substantial benefit.
Perhaps this is why Tony Fauci says he takes a vitamin D supplement?
Now motivated to learn more, I reached out to Dr. David Meltzer from the University of Chicago. He’s the first-author on a nicely done study finding a strong association between low vitamin D levels and testing positive for COVID-19, and he kindly agreed to be interviewed in this OFID podcast about this paper and his ongoing studies. Highly recommended — he’s a smart, experienced clinical researcher, doing community-based randomized trials of various vitamin D interventions.
And there’s quite a bit of other research going on right now, as summarized nicely here in this review by Rita Rubin in JAMA. She also cites some inconsistencies in the research to date, along with a discussion of the funders of some of the trials — not surprisingly, companies from the supplements industry and labs that offer vitamin D tests.
So where do I stand on this vitamin D issue?
It seems highly likely that low vitamin D levels are associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19. Levels are a marker for various components of ill health — inactivity, poor nutrition, lack of fresh air and sunshine.
Conversely, taking vitamin supplements in observational studies often is associated with better outcomes. Whether this is because such people are more health-seeking, or whether the supplement is doing anything, isn’t possible to disentangle. For a perfect example, here’s a recent study showing that regular supplement takers of vitamin D were less likely to get diagnosed with COVID-19. But the benefit didn’t appear to be mediated by higher vitamin D levels.
As to whether taking a vitamin D supplement causally helps to prevent or treat COVID-19, many questions remain. Would it work in everyone? Or just those with low levels? (Essentially every citizen in Boston this time of year, I write, as the snow briskly continues to fall.) Or would it provide benefits only to those at high risk of severe disease? And if one recommends it for patients, friends, and family, what’s the right dose? And the best formulation?
Fortunately, my hospital colleague Dr. JoAnn Manson is leading one of the many studies evaluating vitamin D, both as COVID-19 prevention and treatment. She has extensive experience running large clinical trials, all done by mail/remotely, so if we’re going to get an answer, she’s the right person to do it.
My prediction? Odds are it won’t do anything. But I hope I’m wrong.
That’s why we do the studies!
And here’s the David Meltzer podcast stream, in case you want to stay on this page and look at our cute dog.
January 31st, 2021
Are We Expecting Too Much from Our COVID-19 Vaccines?
There are no absolutes in life. And nothing is perfect.
Tom Brady isn’t always in the Super Bowl (hard to believe). Serena Williams occasionally exits tennis tournaments in the early rounds. Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep sometimes appear in movies that are stinkers.
I’ve always thought that Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in New York fits horribly on Fifth Avenue, and looks like a toilet (not an original thought). Even the Beatles unfortunately released Revolution 9, an interminable abstract sound collage of musical “art” — my vote for their very worst “song”.
So why, then, are we expecting perfection from our COVID-19 vaccines? The vaccines developed in record time and our best chance at controlling the pandemic?
That’s what struck me late last week when we heard the results of two important COVID-19 vaccine studies, one from Novavax, the other from Johnson & Johnson.
Both vaccines worked, but there’s a distinct tone of disappointment in some of the news coverage.
In the Novavax trial, which used a two-shot protein-adjuvant strategy, the vaccine was 90% effective in the United Kingdom, but only 49% effective in South Africa, with most of the vaccine failures in South Africa the result of the B.1.351 variant.
Johnson & Johnson used an adenovirus 26 (Ad26) vector vaccine and one shot. It was only 72 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 in the United States and just 57 percent in South Africa.
(Italics mine, to make a point.)
With the 95% protection in the Pfizer and Moderna studies of mRNA vaccines, the headlines making unfavorable comparisons are understandable.
But there’s a lot to like about these results, even based on the limited information available in the press releases.
Both studies faced a more challenging COVID-19 transmission dynamic than Pfizer and Moderna — with a global surge in cases and emerging variants that are more contagious, potentially of greater disease-causing virulence, and harboring antigenic properties making them more evasive of vaccine protection. We simply don’t know how the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would perform under similar pressures.
And both vaccines appear to prevent severe disease, a critically important endpoint. (Numbers are small in the Novavax press release, but still in the right direction.) Since it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever be able to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from the planet, converting it from something that fills our hospitals into a nuisance respiratory virus — causing a mild cold or sore throat — is a welcome trade-off.
A single-shot J&J Janssen COVID19 vaccine phase 3 results summarized in one table. Great news! Imagine being 💯 protected from death 28 days after a single shot, and 💯 protected from severe disease after 49 days – against all variants. https://t.co/gGCcDbMglr pic.twitter.com/gPCDgG8oNJ
— Prof. Akiko Iwasaki (@VirusesImmunity) January 29, 2021
Prevention of severe disease is something all of these vaccines appear good at, according to a summary by my Boston ID colleague Dr. Roby Bhattacharyya.
Or, as put quite succinctly by longtime vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit:
You want to stay out of the hospital, and stay out of the morgue.
More good news — neither vaccine requires the kind of ultra-cold storage of the mRNA vaccines, a huge plus for distribution. And a one-dose strategy could greatly speed getting a larger number of people with at least some protection.
Meanwhile, in related news, reports of COVID-19 vaccine “failures” continue to make headlines, again making me wonder — why are our expectations so high? Did we really expect these vaccines to be perfect? We’re still in the middle of a pandemic, with only a small fraction of the population vaccinated.
Of course, cases of COVID-19 will continue to occur, even after vaccination. They are not 100% effective, even under the best-case scenario of a clinical trial. What we’re hoping for with vaccination is that there will be fewer cases, that they will be less severe, and hopefully less contagious.
I’m highlighting the distinction between “fewer/less” versus “zero” because there’s reason to expect that real-world effectiveness will not match clinical trial efficacy. We must guard against reports of vaccinated individuals who get COVID-19 as evidence that they don’t work at all.
We don’t know, for example, how they will perform in the frail elderly or the severely immunocompromised — people too infirm to participate in the clinical trials, yet appropriate targets for early immunization. Plus, the variants may make their effectiveness lower than in clinical trials, which is why sequencing of cases that occur after vaccination will be critical.
The true effect on disease incidence must await large, population-based studies — studies we’re likely to see relatively soon, such as these encouraging preliminary data from Israel, which so far has vaccinated a higher proportion of its population than any other country.
Meanwhile, let’s stop expecting perfection, carefully review the emerging research, and focus on getting as many people vaccinated as fast as possible.
And enjoy this amazing medley as a Revolution 9 palate cleanser.
January 24th, 2021
John Bartlett and Hank Aaron — Consistently Great for a Long, Long Time
Early last week, we lost one of the true giants in Infectious Diseases, Dr. John Bartlett. Long-time Chief of ID at Johns Hopkins, he was a true Infectious Diseases polymath — deeply knowledgeable about such a wide range of topics that virtually everyone in our field knew and respected him.
If you’ll permit me to lift this from a previous tribute to John, here’s a partial list of his areas of expertise:
- HIV. Check.
- Clostridioides difficile. Check.
- Respiratory tract infections. Check.
- Antimicrobial resistance. Check.
- Anaerobic pulmonary infections. Check.
Given that breadth of knowledge, it’s no wonder that his annual summaries of “What’s Hot” in Infectious Diseases were must-see events at every IDSA/IDWeek meeting.
Year after year after year.
This consistency of greatness is no small feat. People get sidetracked. Or tired. Or motivated by greener pastures (money). Or hyper-focused on their own areas of expertise. As the famous quote goes, “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.”
John was the polar opposite of this kind of expert.
I’m convinced he maintained this broad view of our field because he was just such an innately curious and enthusiastic person. A (very) small example — I remember telling him of the surprisingly high treatment failure rates in people with high HIV viral loads with the two-drug combination of raltegravir and boosted darunavir in ACTG 5262.
“But they’re two of our best drugs,” he said to me in astonishment. (He was right about that.) “That’s absolutely fascinating! Why do you think that happened?”
For the record, we’re still not quite sure. But it did. And you can be sure that John was genuinely interested, immediately scribbling down a note about it on those ubiquitous yellow pads he carried with him everywhere.
Another remarkable quality of John’s was his extraordinary prescience, always knowing the next “big thing” in Infectious Diseases, often years before others. Here’s text from a paper he published — in 2008:
The United States needs to be better prepared for a large-scale medical catastrophe, be it a natural disaster, a bioterrorism act, or a pandemic. There are substantial planning efforts now devoted to responding to an influenza pandemic… Here, we identify some harsh realities: the US healthcare system is private, competitive, broke, and at capacity, so that any demand for surge cannot be met with existing economic resources, hospital beds, manpower, or supplies.
Chilling. Can you imagine how strong John’s voice would have been in our COVID-19 response had he been well enough this past year to participate?
John’s kindness and approachability, combined with his encyclopedic knowledge of all things ID, allowed him to teach, influence, and mentor countless medical students, residents, and fellows over the years. A distinguished chief of medicine (not an ID doctor) just told me she learned all her fundamental clinical ID knowledge from him during her residency at Hopkins. I have heard this same anecdote from numerous others.
Since everyone adored John, he used these relationships to gain insight from researchers and experts from all over the ID world. If someone started a clinical trial using a novel probiotic to prevent C. diff, he’d call that person and get the inside scoop (never disclosing non-public information, of course). Why this probiotic? What were the goals of the study? The challenges? What did they envision as the long-term risks and benefits?
“I wondered about why they chose this approach,” he’d say, “so I called Dr. — up, and here’s what he told me …” Hearing him talk about cutting edge ID clinical research was inside baseball at its best.
Speaking of baseball — this past week we also lost one of the greatest players who ever lived, Henry “Hank” Aaron, whose long and distinguished career strikes me as quite similar to John’s.
(Yes I can find baseball in anything.)
Aaron could hit for power, hit for average, throw, run, and field — a five-tool player, analogous to John Bartlett’s broad expertise. And it was sustained greatness, year after year after year. In baseball history, nobody was great for longer than Hank Aaron:
Nobody ever played the game so well, so consistently, so long. He was the wave crashing upon the shore.
That Aaron did this in the face of blistering racism, especially as he approached (and passed) Babe Ruth’s home run record, makes his achievements all the more impressive.
Two remarkable people — John Bartlett and Hank Aaron. What a week.
January 18th, 2021
COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
In case you missed it, over on the New England Journal of Medicine, we now have a list of Covid-19 Frequently Asked Questions.
(Why this NEJM Journal Watch site and the actual New England Journal of Medicine use different capitalization rules for this disease is a mystery. And don’t get me started on the Washington Post, which writes it as “covid-19”– all lower-case.)
It’s been a fun project to put these FAQs together, and my great hope is that it’s useful to clinicians and others who have questions about these amazing vaccines. Turns out I’ll learn a lot too.
So far, the single question that has drawn the most attention is this one:
Do the vaccines prevent transmission of the virus to others?
In my response, I try to highlight the fact that while we don’t have ironclad proof, it is highly likely that they will lower the risk. I urge you to read the full question where I outline the evidence so far.
In my response, however, I wrote this:
If there is an example of a vaccine in widespread clinical use that has this selective effect — prevents disease but not infection — I can’t think of one!
Some colleagues now have pointed out a few examples — diphtheria, meningitis B, and pertussis. My apologies for not mentioning these! We will update the site, and thanks for pointing this out.
Nonetheless, the general (if not ironclad) rule that vaccines typically reduce the risk of transmission to others remains true. After all, this is the primary reason why we have policies on mandatory school immunizations, influenza vaccines for hospital employees, and country-specific entry requirements for the yellow fever vaccine. Rubella immunization in particular is critical to prevent transmission of this otherwise benign infection to pregnant women. We also stress the importance of having immunizations up to date for people living with a person with a weakened immune system for this reason.
Sometimes it turns out to be an ancillary benefit of vaccine recommendations. This happened with expanded childhood immunization for pneumococcal disease, which has lowered the incidence in adults.Thanks, kids!
And it can be a great additional motivating factor for people considering the vaccine who might otherwise be undecided. Getting the shot protects you and protects others.
The challenge for us — as summarized in the New York Times — is communicating optimism about the vaccine’s high likelihood of reducing transmission, while at the same time acknowledging that we don’t yet know how much they’ll do so.
The overall message of the piece is that we’re “underselling” these vaccines. That the proven benefit of preventing severe disease is being undermined by caveats regarding disease transmission — about which we have limited, but promising, evidence.
(I suspect it will be a lot, though not 100% — but we’ll see.)
What to do practically in the meantime is also tricky, especially since the vaccine roll-out will be a process that takes months.
Here I totally agree with this piece’s well-stated conclusion, which I’ll quote in full.
We should immediately be more aggressive about mask-wearing and social distancing because of the new virus variants. We should vaccinate people as rapidly as possible — which will require approving other Covid vaccines when the data justifies it.
People who have received both of their vaccine shots, and have waited until they take effect, will be able to do things that unvaccinated people cannot — like having meals together and hugging their grandchildren. But until the pandemic is defeated, all Americans should wear masks in public, help unvaccinated people stay safe and contribute to a shared national project of saving every possible life.
Perfect! And looking forward to a time when the proportion of unvaccinated people is much smaller than it is today.
January 11th, 2021
After Ivermectin Controversy, A COVID-19-Free ID Link-o-Rama
Wow, quite the week for this country of ours. We’re all deeply saddened by the events, very hopeful that the transition in leadership will be peaceful.
And also an eventful week for this little blog. When I wrote “Enter ivermectin — and let the controversy begin,” little did I know.
Amazingly, this is already the second-most widely read post on this site over the past 365 days, and it’s been out less than a week. It’s closing in on number one, which came in early March — that’s when I not-so-boldly predicted we’d see a big increase in COVID-19 cases. Quite the visionary, wasn’t I?
(That was a rhetorical question.)
Anyway, who knew this obscure antiparasitic agent would capture so much attention?
With that controversy out of the way (ahem), allow me to return to non-COVID-19 ID/HIV for a brief time. I’ve been doing inpatient ID consults quite a bit recently, and here are a few of the interesting things that popped up:
- Hypervirulent Klebsiella pneumoniae is a nasty, nasty bug. In addition to liver abscesses, it frequently causes metastatic infection elsewhere, including septic arthritis, meningitis, and endophthalmitis.
- Nodular “granulomatous” pneumocystis pneumonia is an unusual radiographic presentation of PCP. Not all PCP presents with diffuse ground-glass infiltrates — and yes, I still abbreviate it PCP (PneumoCystis Pneumonia). Note that sputum induction and BAL may have lower sensitivity in granulomatous PCP, which will warrant other diagnostic strategies. For example …
- A markedly elevated beta-glucan in a person with HIV and respiratory symptoms is PCP until proven otherwise. Disseminated Talaromyces marneffei and histoplasmosis can also greatly increase beta-glucan in people with HIV, but PCP is way more common. (Should I change to saying PJP? It’s Pneumocystis Jirovecii Pneumonia, after all.)
- This is also true with non-HIV related immunosuppression, where a high beta-glucan and a compatible clinical syndrome are all but diagnostic. Many of the “false positive” beta-glucan results are not very high, or represent testing done in low pre-test probability settings. ID fellows will recognize that fact instantly! (Seems that switching to PJP is just a matter of time. Oh well. I’ll live.)
- Prior treatment failure of hepatitis B with lamivudine may induce entecavir cross-resistance. This is why it’s so critical that our heavily treatment-experienced patients with HIV/HBV receive tenofovir-based regimens — many received lamivudine for years before we knew about this issue of HBV cross-resistance.
- The preferred treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is TMP/SMX. Optimal dosing is unclear, though our crack ID pharmacy team recommend 12 mg/kg/day of the TMP component. (12? Not 10 or 15?) And yes, this is one of those fabulous ID tongue-twister bugs — one of the more common ones.
- TMP/SMX is probably as effective as pyrimethamine plus sulfadiazine for CNS toxoplasmosis. Certainly it’s way less expensive (pyrimethamine, ouch), and much easier to take. It’s already standard of care in most of the rest of the world. Will our HIV opportunistic infection guidelines make this the case here in the USA as well? At least list it side-by-side with pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine, rather than listing it as an alternative?
- Intramedullary spinal cord abscess is a rare CNS infection that may be complicated by spinal artery occlusion. This review notes that 40% are cryptogenic, 20% come from a dermal sinus, and 20% from bacteremia. High incidence of permanent neurologic sequelae.
- Hair loss is a well-recognized complication of prolonged fluconazole use. Anecdotally I’ve seen this most commonly in those being treated for candida endocarditis, cryptococcal meningitis, and osteomyelitis. I’m sure it’s true for coccidioides, too, but we don’t see much of that in Boston. It slowly improves after stopping therapy, or decreasing the dose. In a similar theme …
- Blue skin is a well-recognized complication of prolonged minocycline use. Most cases do resolve over time after cessation of the drug, but sometimes it can be permanent. And it’s not just the skin — here’s a blue aorta!
- While UTIs in older adults no doubt are overdiagnosed (and overtreated), this paper hints that undertreatment may be a problem too. The problem is that assessing whether positive urine cultures are symptomatic — especially in older adults with cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities — is an enormous challenge.
- Oral beta-lactam antibiotics might be a reasonable option for treating gram-negative bacteremia after all. The dogma has always been to use a fluoroquinolone or TMP/SMX. This study suggests beta-lactams may be a good option, provided it’s a urinary source and that initial treatment is parenteral.
- Penicillin-susceptible Staph aureus can be treated with penicillin — provided the microbiology laboratory confirms it’s truly sensitive. The critical thing is that the lab does this testing — some don’t. Anecdotally, penicillin is better tolerated than nafcillin and oxacillin, too.
- Should osteomyelitis complicating sacral pressure ulcers be treated with antibiotics? Generally no, argues this persuasive paper. And this question comes up all the time on inpatient ID services.
- Certain clinical and laboratory features are predictive of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) due to M. avium complex (MAC) in people with HIV. This contemporary series cites low body mass, low hemoglobin, and elevated alkaline phosphatase as readily available predictors. Note that the literature on management of HIV-related MAC IRIS is badly out of date. When should steroids be started? How long should they be continued? What are the side effects? A good project for a large cohort study.
Many thanks to ID fellows Drs. Susan Stanley, Alex Tatara, and Zach Nussbaum for providing some of these references. And remember all you fellows out there, you’re more than halfway done with your first year of fellowship!
For next week? Maybe I’ll write about albendazole. Or praziquantel. Or nitazoxanide. Or some other antiparasitic agent. They seem to be quite popular!
Or maybe I’ll just watch this baby bear playing on this golf green.