Hematology News

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.

Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.

Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.

“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.

The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.

However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.

The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”

Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.

The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.

There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.

Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.

Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.

Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.

“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.

The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.

However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.

The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”

Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.

The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.

There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.

Tending to patients who opt for outpatient autologous stem cell transplants is well tolerated by caregivers, so long as they have the resources and support necessary, according to a recent Italian report.

Investigators surveyed the primary caregivers – most often the spouse – of 25 multiple myeloma patients who, in consultation with their caregiver, opted for an outpatient procedure and 71 others who chose standard inpatient treatment, and compared the results. Outpatients were discharged a day after transplant with twice-weekly clinic visits until sustained hematologic recovery as reported in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

The teams used portions of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment survey that focused on self-reported sense of family support plus affect on daily activities and general health. Surveys were taken a week before transplant and 3 months afterwards.

Results did not differ significantly between outpatient and inpatient caregivers at either point, and there was no meaningful change in responses over time.

“The outpatient model neither improves nor impairs global caregivers’ burden, compared with” inpatient transplant. Outpatient caregivers “do not show that they suffer from a greater burden of responsibility as compared to those belonging to the inpatient’s arm,” said investigators led by Massimo Martino, MD, director of stem cell transplants at the Great Metropolitan Hospital in Reggio Calabria, Italy, where the patients were treated.

The relatively short-lasting neutropenia and the limited nonhematologic toxicity of high-dose melphalan make multiple myeloma good candidates for outpatient programs. Indeed, the incidence rate of mucositis, fever, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and other adverse events did not differ between in and outpatients, which is in keeping with previous reports supporting the feasibility and safety of outpatient programs.

However, the burden on loved ones is considerable. At least during the aplastic phase, outpatient caregivers are on call around the clock and spend most of their time with the patient. Homes have to be kept meticulously clean, vital signs checked, medications administered, and ins and outs monitored, among other duties normally handled by inpatient staff.

The main limit of the study was that outpatients were a self-selected group. They and their caregivers may simply have had the resources and support needed for successful outpatient transplants, while other patients did not. As the investigators put it, “we cannot exclude the problem of residual confounding due to unmeasured variables” such as “factors underlying patients’ preference, which could potentially impact the study results.”

Administering the follow-up survey 3 months after transplant might also have missed the acute impact on outpatient caregivers. It’s been “reported that the quality of life of patients undergoing an” outpatient procedure decreases immediately post treatment but bounces back by 6 months. “The same result can probably be observed in caregivers,” the team said.

The outpatient and inpatient groups were comparable, with a majority of men and a mean age of about 60 years in both. The number of infused stem cells, engraftment kinetics, and hematopoietic cell transplantation–comorbidity index scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.

There was no funding for the work, and the investigators reported that they didn’t have any conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Martino M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Nov 19. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.011.

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.