Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.

The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.

Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.

The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
 

A lentiviral vector

The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.

What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.

The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.

Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.

Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.

Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.

Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
 

Pinpointing causality

At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”

Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.

In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.

Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
 

A patient’s view

SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy

Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.

Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.

“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.

The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.

Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.

The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
 

A lentiviral vector

The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.

What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.

The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.

Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.

Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.

Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.

Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
 

Pinpointing causality

At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”

Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.

In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.

Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
 

A patient’s view

SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy

Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.

Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.

“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.

The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.

Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.

The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
 

A lentiviral vector

The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.

What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.

The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.

Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.

Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.

Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.

Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
 

Pinpointing causality

At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”

Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.

In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.

Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
 

A patient’s view

SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy

Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.

Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.

“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”

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

Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.

The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.

“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
 

Findings “not unexpected”

Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.

“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.

While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.

“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”

Data from a Dutch prospective cohort

The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.

The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.

The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.

A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.

“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.

“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.

The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.

“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
 

Findings “not unexpected”

Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.

“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.

While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.

“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”

Data from a Dutch prospective cohort

The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.

The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.

The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.

A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.

“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.

“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.

The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.

“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
 

Findings “not unexpected”

Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.

“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.

While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.

“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”

Data from a Dutch prospective cohort

The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.

The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.

The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.

A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.

“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.

“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Axillary adenopathy, or swelling under the armpit, has been reported by women after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, but it is also a common symptom of breast cancer.

Clinicians should therefore consider recent COVID-19 vaccination history in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with unilateral axillary adenopathy, according to a new article.

“We noticed an increasing number of patients with swollen lymph nodes on just one side/one underarm who presented for routine screening mammography or ultrasound, and some women who actually felt these swollen nodes,” said author Katerina Dodelzon, MD, assistant professor of clinical radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Historically, swollen lymph nodes on just one side are relatively rare and are an uncommon occurrence on screening mammography – seen only 0.02%-0.04% of the time – and is a sign that alerts a radiologist to exclude the presence of breast malignancy on that side,” she added.

In an article published in Clinical Imaging, Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues described four cases involving women who received a COVID-19 vaccine and then sought breast screening. In describing these cases, the authors sought “to inform the medical community to consider this benign and self-resolving diagnosis in the setting of what can be alarming presentation of unilateral axillary adenopathy.”

They hope they will decrease unnecessary biopsies and help reassure patients.

Adenopathy has been reported in association with other vaccines, such as the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine, influenza vaccines, and the human papillomavirus vaccine, commented Jessica W. T. Leung, MD, president of the Society of Breast Imaging.

“It’s too early to say if there is something different about the COVID-19 vaccines,” said Dr. Leung, who is also professor of diagnostic radiology and deputy chair of breast imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“The two vaccines that are currently in use – Pfizer and Moderna – are both mRNA vaccines, and it is unknown if those will give a stronger immune response,” she said. “If the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines do become available, it will be interesting to see if they elicit as strong a response, since they are not mRNA vaccines. At this time, we have no data to say one way or the other.”

Dr. Leung also noted that these latest vaccine reactions may be getting more attention because “it is COVID-19 related, and everything related to COVID-19 gets more attention.

“It may also be more noticeable because of the large number of people getting vaccinated within a short period of time in an effort to contain the pandemic, and this is not the case with the other vaccines,” she said.
 

New recommendations from SBI

The SBI recently issued recommendations to clinicians that women who experience axillary adenopathy and who have recently been vaccinated on the same side on which the adenopathy occurs be followed for a few weeks to see whether the lymph nodes return to normal, rather than undergo biopsy.

“Many practices are now routinely inquiring about history of recent vaccination and on which side it was given,” Dr. Dodelzon said. She emphasized that women should feel empowered to share that history if they are not asked.

“Letting your mammography technologist or breast imager know that you have recently been vaccinated, and on which side, will provide the breast imager more accurate context within which to interpret the results,” she said.

In addition, the SBI recommends that, if feasible, women schedule routine screening mammography either before the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or 4-6 weeks after the second dose to avoid a false-positive finding.

“We want to emphasize that screening mammography is very important, and if possible, to schedule it around the vaccine,” commented Dr. Leung. “But that may not be possible, as most of us don’t have a choice when to get the vaccine.”

If it is not possible to reschedule either the mammogram or the vaccine, Dr. Leung recommends that women inform the facility that they have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine. “Currently, we recommend a follow-up in 4-12 weeks,” she said. “The swelling could subside sooner, perhaps even within 1-2 weeks, but we generally recommend waiting at least 4 weeks to capture the majority of women.”
 

Differences between the vaccines?

The frequency with which axillary adenopathy occurs as a side effect differs with the two COVID-19 vaccines, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the Moderna vaccine, axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to the vaccination arm was the second most frequently reported local reaction, with 11.6% of recipients aged 18-64 years reporting it after the first dose, and 16.0% reporting it after the second. The average duration of this adenopathy was 1-2 days.

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC notes that reports of adenopathy were imbalanced between the vaccine and placebo groups and concluded that adenopathy was plausibly related to the vaccine.

The average duration of adenopathy was approximately 10 days.

Adenopathy was reported within 2-4 days after vaccination for both vaccine groups, the CDC noted.

However, details from the cases reported by Dr. Dodelzon and colleagues paint a somewhat different picture. For example, in case 1, the patient self-detected unilateral axillary adenopathy 9 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In case 3, the time between receiving the Moderna vaccine and detection of adenopathy was 13 days.

In both of these cases, the time was much longer than the average duration of 1-2 days noted by the CDC. The authors suggest that in taking the patient’s vaccination history, radiologists understand that the side effect may occur up to several weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination.

In cases 2 and 4, the axillary adenopathy was incidentally noted during mammography, so it is unclear when the onset of this reaction occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

The authors and Dr. Leung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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