Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Almost one-third of gastroenterologists may have low resilient coping skills, a finding linked with clinical insomnia, according to a national survey conducted between May and June of 2020.

The study, which was designed to characterize the psychological health of gastroenterologists during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how a complex array of factors drives poor psychological health, rather than specific challenges, such as coronavirus exposure risk, reported lead author Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“The COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented and unique challenges to gastroenterologists eager to maintain clinical practice, patients’ health, and their own physical/mental well-being,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.To learn more, Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists in the United States.

Primary outcomes included clinical insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index-7 [ISI-7], general anxiety disorder (General Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 [PHQ-8]. The investigators developed additional domains to characterize perceived coronavirus exposure risks, practice-related challenges, and personal challenges. Further assessment determined whether resilient coping skills (Brief Resilient Coping Scale [BRCS]) or well-being (Physician Well-Being Index [PWBI]) were associated with psychological health outcomes.

A total of 153 gastroenterologists from 32 states completed the questionnaire, among whom the mean age and years in practice were 46 years and 13 years, respectively. Almost one-quarter of respondents were female (22.7%).

The survey found that anxiety and depression were uncommon, with respective rates of 7.2% and 8.5%.

In contrast, 30.7% of gastroenterologists reported low resilient coping skills.

“Resilience is defined as the ‘mental processes and behaviors that a person uses to protect themselves from the potential negative effects of stressors,’” the investigators wrote. “Resilient coping skills allow individuals in stressful situations to avoid negative psychological health consequences such as depression and anxiety.”

The study showed that low resilience was associated with clinical insomnia (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-12.46), which occurred in more than one-quarter of respondents (25.5%).

Insomnia was also associated with age greater than 60 years, isolation outside the home, and years in practice. After adjusting for sex, age, and resilient coping, univariate analysis showed that insomnia was associated with isolation, female sex, and smaller practice size (fewer than 15 attending physicians).

While most respondents (85%) reported moderate to-high well-being, those who didn’t were significantly more likely to report clinical anxiety, depression, and insomnia (P < .001 for all).

“[W]e found that singular personal challenges, practice-related challenges, and perceived COVID-19–related exposure risks (such as perception of PPE availability) had little association with important psychological health outcomes including depression or anxiety,” wrote Dr. Shah and colleagues.

Instead, the investigators pointed to resilience.

“Physician leaders and other administrators should consider strategies to maintain resilient coping skills among their colleagues such as dedicated resilience training and self-care,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that multiple stakeholders, including professional societies and policy makers, will be needed to implement such programs, and others. Additional interventions may include ensuring personal protective equipment availability, developing better technology for telemedicine, and supporting small practices that face financial obstacles in canceling elective procedures, the investigators wrote.

Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the 30% prevalence rate for low resilient coping skills was the “most striking” finding.

Dr. Barnes went on to suggest that the survey results may actually underplay the current psychological landscape in gastroenterology.

“This study encompassed 2 of the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-June 2020), which makes one wonder whether these same effects would be magnified over an even longer period of assessment,” he said.

Dr. Barnes, who authored an article last year concerning interventions for burnout in young gastroenterologists, offered some practical insight.

“As sleep deprivation has been associated with burnout and medical errors even outside the settings of a global pandemic (Trockel et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2028111), efforts to mitigate sleep deprivation seem key,” he said. “Given that resilience is a skill that can be both learned and improved, focused interventions by health care systems to ensure the presence of resilient coping skills among gastroenterologists could be a critical way to reduce psychological stress, prevent burnout, and improve the overall well-being of health care providers.” Dr. Shah is supported by the AGA Research Foundation’s 2019 AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders. He and his fellow investigators, as well as Dr. Barnes, reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah et al. CGH. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.043.

Almost one-third of gastroenterologists may have low resilient coping skills, a finding linked with clinical insomnia, according to a national survey conducted between May and June of 2020.

The study, which was designed to characterize the psychological health of gastroenterologists during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how a complex array of factors drives poor psychological health, rather than specific challenges, such as coronavirus exposure risk, reported lead author Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“The COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented and unique challenges to gastroenterologists eager to maintain clinical practice, patients’ health, and their own physical/mental well-being,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.To learn more, Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists in the United States.

Primary outcomes included clinical insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index-7 [ISI-7], general anxiety disorder (General Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 [PHQ-8]. The investigators developed additional domains to characterize perceived coronavirus exposure risks, practice-related challenges, and personal challenges. Further assessment determined whether resilient coping skills (Brief Resilient Coping Scale [BRCS]) or well-being (Physician Well-Being Index [PWBI]) were associated with psychological health outcomes.

A total of 153 gastroenterologists from 32 states completed the questionnaire, among whom the mean age and years in practice were 46 years and 13 years, respectively. Almost one-quarter of respondents were female (22.7%).

The survey found that anxiety and depression were uncommon, with respective rates of 7.2% and 8.5%.

In contrast, 30.7% of gastroenterologists reported low resilient coping skills.

“Resilience is defined as the ‘mental processes and behaviors that a person uses to protect themselves from the potential negative effects of stressors,’” the investigators wrote. “Resilient coping skills allow individuals in stressful situations to avoid negative psychological health consequences such as depression and anxiety.”

The study showed that low resilience was associated with clinical insomnia (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-12.46), which occurred in more than one-quarter of respondents (25.5%).

Insomnia was also associated with age greater than 60 years, isolation outside the home, and years in practice. After adjusting for sex, age, and resilient coping, univariate analysis showed that insomnia was associated with isolation, female sex, and smaller practice size (fewer than 15 attending physicians).

While most respondents (85%) reported moderate to-high well-being, those who didn’t were significantly more likely to report clinical anxiety, depression, and insomnia (P < .001 for all).

“[W]e found that singular personal challenges, practice-related challenges, and perceived COVID-19–related exposure risks (such as perception of PPE availability) had little association with important psychological health outcomes including depression or anxiety,” wrote Dr. Shah and colleagues.

Instead, the investigators pointed to resilience.

“Physician leaders and other administrators should consider strategies to maintain resilient coping skills among their colleagues such as dedicated resilience training and self-care,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that multiple stakeholders, including professional societies and policy makers, will be needed to implement such programs, and others. Additional interventions may include ensuring personal protective equipment availability, developing better technology for telemedicine, and supporting small practices that face financial obstacles in canceling elective procedures, the investigators wrote.

Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the 30% prevalence rate for low resilient coping skills was the “most striking” finding.

Dr. Barnes went on to suggest that the survey results may actually underplay the current psychological landscape in gastroenterology.

“This study encompassed 2 of the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-June 2020), which makes one wonder whether these same effects would be magnified over an even longer period of assessment,” he said.

Dr. Barnes, who authored an article last year concerning interventions for burnout in young gastroenterologists, offered some practical insight.

“As sleep deprivation has been associated with burnout and medical errors even outside the settings of a global pandemic (Trockel et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2028111), efforts to mitigate sleep deprivation seem key,” he said. “Given that resilience is a skill that can be both learned and improved, focused interventions by health care systems to ensure the presence of resilient coping skills among gastroenterologists could be a critical way to reduce psychological stress, prevent burnout, and improve the overall well-being of health care providers.” Dr. Shah is supported by the AGA Research Foundation’s 2019 AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders. He and his fellow investigators, as well as Dr. Barnes, reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah et al. CGH. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.043.

Almost one-third of gastroenterologists may have low resilient coping skills, a finding linked with clinical insomnia, according to a national survey conducted between May and June of 2020.

The study, which was designed to characterize the psychological health of gastroenterologists during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how a complex array of factors drives poor psychological health, rather than specific challenges, such as coronavirus exposure risk, reported lead author Eric D. Shah, MD, MBA, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

“The COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented and unique challenges to gastroenterologists eager to maintain clinical practice, patients’ health, and their own physical/mental well-being,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.To learn more, Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists in the United States.

Primary outcomes included clinical insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index-7 [ISI-7], general anxiety disorder (General Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 [PHQ-8]. The investigators developed additional domains to characterize perceived coronavirus exposure risks, practice-related challenges, and personal challenges. Further assessment determined whether resilient coping skills (Brief Resilient Coping Scale [BRCS]) or well-being (Physician Well-Being Index [PWBI]) were associated with psychological health outcomes.

A total of 153 gastroenterologists from 32 states completed the questionnaire, among whom the mean age and years in practice were 46 years and 13 years, respectively. Almost one-quarter of respondents were female (22.7%).

The survey found that anxiety and depression were uncommon, with respective rates of 7.2% and 8.5%.

In contrast, 30.7% of gastroenterologists reported low resilient coping skills.

“Resilience is defined as the ‘mental processes and behaviors that a person uses to protect themselves from the potential negative effects of stressors,’” the investigators wrote. “Resilient coping skills allow individuals in stressful situations to avoid negative psychological health consequences such as depression and anxiety.”

The study showed that low resilience was associated with clinical insomnia (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-12.46), which occurred in more than one-quarter of respondents (25.5%).

Insomnia was also associated with age greater than 60 years, isolation outside the home, and years in practice. After adjusting for sex, age, and resilient coping, univariate analysis showed that insomnia was associated with isolation, female sex, and smaller practice size (fewer than 15 attending physicians).

While most respondents (85%) reported moderate to-high well-being, those who didn’t were significantly more likely to report clinical anxiety, depression, and insomnia (P < .001 for all).

“[W]e found that singular personal challenges, practice-related challenges, and perceived COVID-19–related exposure risks (such as perception of PPE availability) had little association with important psychological health outcomes including depression or anxiety,” wrote Dr. Shah and colleagues.

Instead, the investigators pointed to resilience.

“Physician leaders and other administrators should consider strategies to maintain resilient coping skills among their colleagues such as dedicated resilience training and self-care,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that multiple stakeholders, including professional societies and policy makers, will be needed to implement such programs, and others. Additional interventions may include ensuring personal protective equipment availability, developing better technology for telemedicine, and supporting small practices that face financial obstacles in canceling elective procedures, the investigators wrote.

Edward L. Barnes, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the 30% prevalence rate for low resilient coping skills was the “most striking” finding.

Dr. Barnes went on to suggest that the survey results may actually underplay the current psychological landscape in gastroenterology.

“This study encompassed 2 of the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-June 2020), which makes one wonder whether these same effects would be magnified over an even longer period of assessment,” he said.

Dr. Barnes, who authored an article last year concerning interventions for burnout in young gastroenterologists, offered some practical insight.

“As sleep deprivation has been associated with burnout and medical errors even outside the settings of a global pandemic (Trockel et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2028111), efforts to mitigate sleep deprivation seem key,” he said. “Given that resilience is a skill that can be both learned and improved, focused interventions by health care systems to ensure the presence of resilient coping skills among gastroenterologists could be a critical way to reduce psychological stress, prevent burnout, and improve the overall well-being of health care providers.” Dr. Shah is supported by the AGA Research Foundation’s 2019 AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders. He and his fellow investigators, as well as Dr. Barnes, reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Shah et al. CGH. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.043.

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicious use of stimulants may help patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) stay in addiction treatment programs, research shows.

Results of a 5-year retrospective cohort study showed adult patients with ADHD attending an addiction recovery program were five times less likely to drop out of care if they were receiving stimulant medication within the first 90 days, compared with their peers who received no medication.

“When considering the risks and benefits of ADHD pharmacotherapy and particularly stimulant therapy in the addiction clinic, we should really be thinking about the risk of treatment dropout and poor retention if we do not treat the ADHD syndrome,” study investigator Kristopher A. Kast, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry annual meeting, which was held online this year.
 

Comorbidity common

“This study matters because this clinical situation comes up a lot, where you have patients who are presenting in the substance use disorder clinic who are experiencing symptoms of ADHD and who have been on stimulant therapy either as a child or young adult in the past,” said Dr. Kast, who conducted this study while he was at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

About 25% of patients presenting to outpatient substance use care meet criteria for an ADHD diagnosis, and having both conditions worsens ADHD and SUD outcomes, he noted.

“ADHD treatment would be helpful to these people, but often clinicians are reluctant to prescribe stimulant medication because it’s a controlled substance. Especially early on in treatment, we’re often worried that such a medication could destabilize the patient,” said Dr. Kast.  

To examine the relationship between ADHD pharmacotherapy and retention in SUD treatment participants, the investigators assessed electronic medical record data from Mass General over a period of 5.5 years, from July 2014 to January 2020.

The data included information on 2,163 patients (63% men; mean age, 44 years) admitted to the addiction clinic. A total of 203 had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD (9.4%). Of these 203 participants, 171 were receiving ADHD pharmacotherapy and 32 were untreated.

Among all participants, the group with ADHD was significantly younger than the non-ADHD group (mean age, 38 vs. 45 years, respectively) and more likely to use cocaine (31% vs. 12%) and have private insurance (64% vs. 44%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Results showed ADHD stimulant therapy within the first 90 days of SUD treatment was a robust indication of retention. After adjusting for several variables, only ADHD pharmacotherapy was significantly associated with retention (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P = .008).

“It was the only variable in a multivariate regression analysis that predicted longer-term retention. It was an even stronger predictor than Suboxone [buprenorphine and naloxone] therapy, with is traditionally strongly associated with retention,” Dr. Kast noted.

He added that, because this was a retrospective, nonrandomized study, it limited the ability to address confounding and unmeasured covariates.

“Our findings may not generalize to the undiagnosed group of patients who would be identified by standardized diagnostic instruments,” Kast said. “Future studies should address risk and number-needed-to-harm associated with ADHD pharmacotherapy.”
 

High dropout rate

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Frances Levin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that previous research has shown that patients with ADHD tend to do less well in addiction treatment and drop out of programs more frequently.

What has not been shown as effectively, at least in substance use treatment settings, is that treating ADHD makes a difference in terms of retention, she said.

Although Dr. Levin wasn’t involved in this study, she is currently part of a European study that is assessing SUD treatment-retention outcomes in patients with ADHD who have been randomly assigned to receive either stimulant or nonstimulant medication.

Clinicians are too often focused on risks for overtreatment, diversion, and misuse but what is underappreciated is the risk for undertreatment, Dr. Levin noted.

“This study reminds us of the dangers of undertreatment. Not using the right drugs may make people less likely to stay in treatment and continue their drug use,” she said.

“Misuse and diversion are much higher with immediate-release preparations, and for this reason it’s important to use the long-acting stimulants in this population. Often people do not make that distinction,” Dr. Levin added.

As an expert in the field for more than 2 decades, Dr. Levin said she has learned a lot about treating this type of patient. “You have to monitor them very closely, and never prescribe in a cavalier way,” she said.

“I have the same discussion with these patients that I have when I talk about buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. It is a tremendously powerful medication, saves many lives and prevents overdose, but there is a risk of misuse and diversion, albeit pretty low. It’s there, and you have to use it carefully, but I think being careful vs. never prescribing are two different things,” Dr. Levin said.  
 

‘Guidance and reassurance’

The traditional belief among the general medical community that controlled substances should always be avoided in patients with SUD has hindered treatment for many with comorbid ADHD, said Cornel Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., when asked for comment.

“I have encountered many non–addiction-trained physicians who provide buprenorphine treatment for OUD, and they hesitate not only to assess for ADHD but also to implement standard of care treatment when such a diagnosis is made,” Dr. Stanciu told said in an interview.

He added that this practice often stems from fear of “being under the radar” of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for what it might consider an aberrant prescribing pattern involving two controlled substances.

“Hopefully, studies such as Dr. Kast’s will continue to shine light on this issue and offer guidance and reassurance to those treating addictive disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said. 

Dr. Kast, Dr. Levin, and Dr. Stanciu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Judicious use of stimulants may help patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) stay in addiction treatment programs, research shows.

Results of a 5-year retrospective cohort study showed adult patients with ADHD attending an addiction recovery program were five times less likely to drop out of care if they were receiving stimulant medication within the first 90 days, compared with their peers who received no medication.

“When considering the risks and benefits of ADHD pharmacotherapy and particularly stimulant therapy in the addiction clinic, we should really be thinking about the risk of treatment dropout and poor retention if we do not treat the ADHD syndrome,” study investigator Kristopher A. Kast, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry annual meeting, which was held online this year.
 

Comorbidity common

“This study matters because this clinical situation comes up a lot, where you have patients who are presenting in the substance use disorder clinic who are experiencing symptoms of ADHD and who have been on stimulant therapy either as a child or young adult in the past,” said Dr. Kast, who conducted this study while he was at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

About 25% of patients presenting to outpatient substance use care meet criteria for an ADHD diagnosis, and having both conditions worsens ADHD and SUD outcomes, he noted.

“ADHD treatment would be helpful to these people, but often clinicians are reluctant to prescribe stimulant medication because it’s a controlled substance. Especially early on in treatment, we’re often worried that such a medication could destabilize the patient,” said Dr. Kast.  

To examine the relationship between ADHD pharmacotherapy and retention in SUD treatment participants, the investigators assessed electronic medical record data from Mass General over a period of 5.5 years, from July 2014 to January 2020.

The data included information on 2,163 patients (63% men; mean age, 44 years) admitted to the addiction clinic. A total of 203 had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD (9.4%). Of these 203 participants, 171 were receiving ADHD pharmacotherapy and 32 were untreated.

Among all participants, the group with ADHD was significantly younger than the non-ADHD group (mean age, 38 vs. 45 years, respectively) and more likely to use cocaine (31% vs. 12%) and have private insurance (64% vs. 44%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Results showed ADHD stimulant therapy within the first 90 days of SUD treatment was a robust indication of retention. After adjusting for several variables, only ADHD pharmacotherapy was significantly associated with retention (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P = .008).

“It was the only variable in a multivariate regression analysis that predicted longer-term retention. It was an even stronger predictor than Suboxone [buprenorphine and naloxone] therapy, with is traditionally strongly associated with retention,” Dr. Kast noted.

He added that, because this was a retrospective, nonrandomized study, it limited the ability to address confounding and unmeasured covariates.

“Our findings may not generalize to the undiagnosed group of patients who would be identified by standardized diagnostic instruments,” Kast said. “Future studies should address risk and number-needed-to-harm associated with ADHD pharmacotherapy.”
 

High dropout rate

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Frances Levin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that previous research has shown that patients with ADHD tend to do less well in addiction treatment and drop out of programs more frequently.

What has not been shown as effectively, at least in substance use treatment settings, is that treating ADHD makes a difference in terms of retention, she said.

Although Dr. Levin wasn’t involved in this study, she is currently part of a European study that is assessing SUD treatment-retention outcomes in patients with ADHD who have been randomly assigned to receive either stimulant or nonstimulant medication.

Clinicians are too often focused on risks for overtreatment, diversion, and misuse but what is underappreciated is the risk for undertreatment, Dr. Levin noted.

“This study reminds us of the dangers of undertreatment. Not using the right drugs may make people less likely to stay in treatment and continue their drug use,” she said.

“Misuse and diversion are much higher with immediate-release preparations, and for this reason it’s important to use the long-acting stimulants in this population. Often people do not make that distinction,” Dr. Levin added.

As an expert in the field for more than 2 decades, Dr. Levin said she has learned a lot about treating this type of patient. “You have to monitor them very closely, and never prescribe in a cavalier way,” she said.

“I have the same discussion with these patients that I have when I talk about buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. It is a tremendously powerful medication, saves many lives and prevents overdose, but there is a risk of misuse and diversion, albeit pretty low. It’s there, and you have to use it carefully, but I think being careful vs. never prescribing are two different things,” Dr. Levin said.  
 

‘Guidance and reassurance’

The traditional belief among the general medical community that controlled substances should always be avoided in patients with SUD has hindered treatment for many with comorbid ADHD, said Cornel Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., when asked for comment.

“I have encountered many non–addiction-trained physicians who provide buprenorphine treatment for OUD, and they hesitate not only to assess for ADHD but also to implement standard of care treatment when such a diagnosis is made,” Dr. Stanciu told said in an interview.

He added that this practice often stems from fear of “being under the radar” of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for what it might consider an aberrant prescribing pattern involving two controlled substances.

“Hopefully, studies such as Dr. Kast’s will continue to shine light on this issue and offer guidance and reassurance to those treating addictive disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said. 

Dr. Kast, Dr. Levin, and Dr. Stanciu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Judicious use of stimulants may help patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) stay in addiction treatment programs, research shows.

Results of a 5-year retrospective cohort study showed adult patients with ADHD attending an addiction recovery program were five times less likely to drop out of care if they were receiving stimulant medication within the first 90 days, compared with their peers who received no medication.

“When considering the risks and benefits of ADHD pharmacotherapy and particularly stimulant therapy in the addiction clinic, we should really be thinking about the risk of treatment dropout and poor retention if we do not treat the ADHD syndrome,” study investigator Kristopher A. Kast, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry annual meeting, which was held online this year.
 

Comorbidity common

“This study matters because this clinical situation comes up a lot, where you have patients who are presenting in the substance use disorder clinic who are experiencing symptoms of ADHD and who have been on stimulant therapy either as a child or young adult in the past,” said Dr. Kast, who conducted this study while he was at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

About 25% of patients presenting to outpatient substance use care meet criteria for an ADHD diagnosis, and having both conditions worsens ADHD and SUD outcomes, he noted.

“ADHD treatment would be helpful to these people, but often clinicians are reluctant to prescribe stimulant medication because it’s a controlled substance. Especially early on in treatment, we’re often worried that such a medication could destabilize the patient,” said Dr. Kast.  

To examine the relationship between ADHD pharmacotherapy and retention in SUD treatment participants, the investigators assessed electronic medical record data from Mass General over a period of 5.5 years, from July 2014 to January 2020.

The data included information on 2,163 patients (63% men; mean age, 44 years) admitted to the addiction clinic. A total of 203 had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD (9.4%). Of these 203 participants, 171 were receiving ADHD pharmacotherapy and 32 were untreated.

Among all participants, the group with ADHD was significantly younger than the non-ADHD group (mean age, 38 vs. 45 years, respectively) and more likely to use cocaine (31% vs. 12%) and have private insurance (64% vs. 44%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Results showed ADHD stimulant therapy within the first 90 days of SUD treatment was a robust indication of retention. After adjusting for several variables, only ADHD pharmacotherapy was significantly associated with retention (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P = .008).

“It was the only variable in a multivariate regression analysis that predicted longer-term retention. It was an even stronger predictor than Suboxone [buprenorphine and naloxone] therapy, with is traditionally strongly associated with retention,” Dr. Kast noted.

He added that, because this was a retrospective, nonrandomized study, it limited the ability to address confounding and unmeasured covariates.

“Our findings may not generalize to the undiagnosed group of patients who would be identified by standardized diagnostic instruments,” Kast said. “Future studies should address risk and number-needed-to-harm associated with ADHD pharmacotherapy.”
 

High dropout rate

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Frances Levin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that previous research has shown that patients with ADHD tend to do less well in addiction treatment and drop out of programs more frequently.

What has not been shown as effectively, at least in substance use treatment settings, is that treating ADHD makes a difference in terms of retention, she said.

Although Dr. Levin wasn’t involved in this study, she is currently part of a European study that is assessing SUD treatment-retention outcomes in patients with ADHD who have been randomly assigned to receive either stimulant or nonstimulant medication.

Clinicians are too often focused on risks for overtreatment, diversion, and misuse but what is underappreciated is the risk for undertreatment, Dr. Levin noted.

“This study reminds us of the dangers of undertreatment. Not using the right drugs may make people less likely to stay in treatment and continue their drug use,” she said.

“Misuse and diversion are much higher with immediate-release preparations, and for this reason it’s important to use the long-acting stimulants in this population. Often people do not make that distinction,” Dr. Levin added.

As an expert in the field for more than 2 decades, Dr. Levin said she has learned a lot about treating this type of patient. “You have to monitor them very closely, and never prescribe in a cavalier way,” she said.

“I have the same discussion with these patients that I have when I talk about buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. It is a tremendously powerful medication, saves many lives and prevents overdose, but there is a risk of misuse and diversion, albeit pretty low. It’s there, and you have to use it carefully, but I think being careful vs. never prescribing are two different things,” Dr. Levin said.  
 

‘Guidance and reassurance’

The traditional belief among the general medical community that controlled substances should always be avoided in patients with SUD has hindered treatment for many with comorbid ADHD, said Cornel Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., when asked for comment.

“I have encountered many non–addiction-trained physicians who provide buprenorphine treatment for OUD, and they hesitate not only to assess for ADHD but also to implement standard of care treatment when such a diagnosis is made,” Dr. Stanciu told said in an interview.

He added that this practice often stems from fear of “being under the radar” of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for what it might consider an aberrant prescribing pattern involving two controlled substances.

“Hopefully, studies such as Dr. Kast’s will continue to shine light on this issue and offer guidance and reassurance to those treating addictive disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said. 

Dr. Kast, Dr. Levin, and Dr. Stanciu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved an oral form of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) known as relugolix (Orgovyx) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. The new pill form may mean fewer clinic visits for patients, an added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press statement.

“Today’s approval marks the first oral drug in this class, and it may eliminate some patients’ need to visit the clinic for treatments that require administration by a health care provider,” he commented.

Relugolix works by preventing the pituitary gland from making luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, thus reducing the amount of testosterone the testicles can make.

In the open-label HERO trial, 930 patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral relugolix or leuprolide injection every 3 months for 48 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that castration at 48 weeks was maintained in 96.7% of men receiving relugolix vs. 88.8% for patients receiving leuprolide; castration levels of testosterone had to be reached by day 29 and then sustained through the end of the treatment course.

Relugolix has the “potential to become a new standard for ADT and advanced prostate cancer,” commented study investigator Neal D. Shore, MD, of Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were first presented.

They were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

At the ASCO meeting, David R. Wise, MD, PhD, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, agreed that the drug could be practice-changing – but claimed that it would be for a subset of patients only, specifically, patients with a significant history of cardiovascular disease who are without gastrointestinal malabsorption.

Notably, in the study, relugolix cut the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 54% in comparison with leuprolide, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

According to the FDA, the most common side effects of relugolix include hot flush, increased glucose levels, increased triglyceride levels, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, and increased levels of certain liver enzymes.

Concurrent use of relugolix with drugs that inhibit P-glycoprotein is contraindicated.

Also, health care providers should consider having patients undergo periodic electrocardiographic monitoring as well as periodic monitoring of electrolyte levels. Owing to the drug’s suppression of the pituitary gonadal system, any diagnostic test results of the pituitary gonadotropic and gonadal functions conducted during and after taking relugolix may be affected.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved an oral form of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) known as relugolix (Orgovyx) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. The new pill form may mean fewer clinic visits for patients, an added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press statement.

“Today’s approval marks the first oral drug in this class, and it may eliminate some patients’ need to visit the clinic for treatments that require administration by a health care provider,” he commented.

Relugolix works by preventing the pituitary gland from making luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, thus reducing the amount of testosterone the testicles can make.

In the open-label HERO trial, 930 patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral relugolix or leuprolide injection every 3 months for 48 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that castration at 48 weeks was maintained in 96.7% of men receiving relugolix vs. 88.8% for patients receiving leuprolide; castration levels of testosterone had to be reached by day 29 and then sustained through the end of the treatment course.

Relugolix has the “potential to become a new standard for ADT and advanced prostate cancer,” commented study investigator Neal D. Shore, MD, of Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were first presented.

They were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

At the ASCO meeting, David R. Wise, MD, PhD, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, agreed that the drug could be practice-changing – but claimed that it would be for a subset of patients only, specifically, patients with a significant history of cardiovascular disease who are without gastrointestinal malabsorption.

Notably, in the study, relugolix cut the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 54% in comparison with leuprolide, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

According to the FDA, the most common side effects of relugolix include hot flush, increased glucose levels, increased triglyceride levels, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, and increased levels of certain liver enzymes.

Concurrent use of relugolix with drugs that inhibit P-glycoprotein is contraindicated.

Also, health care providers should consider having patients undergo periodic electrocardiographic monitoring as well as periodic monitoring of electrolyte levels. Owing to the drug’s suppression of the pituitary gonadal system, any diagnostic test results of the pituitary gonadotropic and gonadal functions conducted during and after taking relugolix may be affected.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved an oral form of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) known as relugolix (Orgovyx) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced prostate cancer.

Relugolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. The new pill form may mean fewer clinic visits for patients, an added benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press statement.

“Today’s approval marks the first oral drug in this class, and it may eliminate some patients’ need to visit the clinic for treatments that require administration by a health care provider,” he commented.

Relugolix works by preventing the pituitary gland from making luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, thus reducing the amount of testosterone the testicles can make.

In the open-label HERO trial, 930 patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral relugolix or leuprolide injection every 3 months for 48 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that castration at 48 weeks was maintained in 96.7% of men receiving relugolix vs. 88.8% for patients receiving leuprolide; castration levels of testosterone had to be reached by day 29 and then sustained through the end of the treatment course.

Relugolix has the “potential to become a new standard for ADT and advanced prostate cancer,” commented study investigator Neal D. Shore, MD, of Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were first presented.

They were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

At the ASCO meeting, David R. Wise, MD, PhD, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health, New York, agreed that the drug could be practice-changing – but claimed that it would be for a subset of patients only, specifically, patients with a significant history of cardiovascular disease who are without gastrointestinal malabsorption.

Notably, in the study, relugolix cut the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 54% in comparison with leuprolide, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

According to the FDA, the most common side effects of relugolix include hot flush, increased glucose levels, increased triglyceride levels, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, and increased levels of certain liver enzymes.

Concurrent use of relugolix with drugs that inhibit P-glycoprotein is contraindicated.

Also, health care providers should consider having patients undergo periodic electrocardiographic monitoring as well as periodic monitoring of electrolyte levels. Owing to the drug’s suppression of the pituitary gonadal system, any diagnostic test results of the pituitary gonadotropic and gonadal functions conducted during and after taking relugolix may be affected.

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

Like most health care workers at his hospital in Lafayette, Ind., Ramesh Adhikari, MD, FHM, occasionally gets an email noting that a patient he saw later tested positive for COVID-19. He’s reminded to self-monitor for symptoms. But 10 months into the pandemic, it has become increasingly unlikely for contact tracing investigations to result in clinicians quarantining.

The very act of working in the hospital, Dr. Adhikari said, means being likely to see COVID-19 every day, whether in a known patient or an asymptomatic person who tests positive later. If hospitalists had to quarantine after every interaction with a COVID-positive person, there wouldn’t be anyone left to do their jobs.

“It’s really hard to do [contact tracing] in health care workers thoroughly because of the way we work,” Dr. Adhikari said. “It’s impossible to do it absolutely.”

In a recently updated guidance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended more leeway in contact tracing when community rates of COVID-19 surge, even allowing that contact tracing “may not be possible” in certain situations. And by defining an exposure more narrowly – health care workers are only considered “exposed” if their contact was more than 15 minutes or lacking in some form of PPE – the guidelines suggest that hospitals can rely more on universal PPE and screening protocols, as Dr. Adhikari’s hospital does, and less on extensive contact tracing to curtail viral spread.

Accordingly, while contact tracing has gotten more lax, doctors say, universal precautions – including full PPE and screening of symptoms for patients and health care workers – have become more stringent.

It’s a shift from the beginning of the pandemic. At first, CDC recommended wearing masks only during aerosol-producing procedures. Exposures were frequently reported and health care workers sent home. With more evidence in favor of stricter PPE requirements, hospitals including the one where Shyam Odeti, MD, FHM, works in Johnson City, Tenn., have adopted a universal precaution strategy – requiring masks everywhere and a gown, face shield, gloves, and N95 to enter a COVID-positive patient’s room. Thus, most exposures fall into that low-risk category.

“If I get it and am asymptomatic, I don’t think my colleagues would be exposed by any means because of these stringent policies being enforced,” said Dr. Odeti, a hospitalist who often wears a surgical mask on top of his N95 all day. “And U.S. health care is not in a state that can afford to quarantine health care workers for 14 days.”
 

Can universal PPE precautions supplant contact tracing?

The extent of contact tracing varies by hospital. Larger university and community hospitals often have infection control and occupational health teams that can do their own contact tracing, while smaller institutions can’t always spare staff. And some state health departments get involved with contact tracing of health care workers while others do not.

“I would venture to say that most hospitals are doing something in terms of contact tracing,” said Pam Falk, MPH, CIC, a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology’s COVID-19 task force and an infection control consultant. “It kind of depends on their bandwidth.”

But there’s no longer a norm. Outside of a pandemic, with ample staffing and far fewer instances that need to be investigated, standards for contact tracing are higher, Dr. Falk said: When a patient is found to have an airborne disease such as tuberculosis, measles, mumps, or chickenpox, a hospital’s infection prevention team should investigate, confirm the diagnosis and identify everyone who was exposed. The hospital’s occupational health team assists in deciding who will likely need prophylactic treatment and if employees should be furloughed. The thoroughness of such measures has always depended on a hospital’s bandwidth.

Because PPE seems to be able to contain COVID-19 better than some of the older diseases targeted by contact tracing, universal protections may be a reasonable alternative in current circumstances, doctors said – if PPE is available.

“At the end of the day, universal source control with surgical masks – and ideally eye protection for clinicians as well – should prevent most transmissions,” said Aaron Richterman, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored a JAMA commentary on decreased transmission rates in hospitals.

Contact tracing is still useful, though, to identify weaknesses in universal protection measures, he said.

“I don’t think it’s worth abandoning. It’s like a tool in the toolbox. All are imperfect, and none work 100% of the time,” Dr. Richterman said, but using all of them can achieve a fairly high measure of safety. Of the tools, universal masking likely works the best, he contends, so it should be the top pick for hospitals without resources to use all of the tools.

A recent incident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston is a case study in how contact tracing can work together with universal protections to identify cracks in the system, said Dr. Richterman, who worked at the hospital earlier in the pandemic.

Mass General Brigham adopted a universal masking policy for staff and patients in March 2020. Then, when the system experienced an outbreak in September, the hospital did “a very detailed public evaluation that included contact tracing and universal testing,” Dr. Richterman said. Testing even included genetic analysis of the virus to confirm which cases were hospital acquired. In the end, the hospital identified weaknesses in infection control that could be rectified, such as clinicians eating too close together.

“The approach is not to point fingers, but to say: ‘What’s wrong with the system and how do we improve?’ ” Dr. Richterman said. “To ask, why did that maskless transmission happen? Is there not enough space to eat? Are people working too many hours? It’s useful for systems to understand where transmissions are happening.”

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist in Dothan, Ala., is comfortable without much contact tracing as long as there is universal PPE use. His hospital informs clinicians of exposures, but “basically we’re trained to treat every patient as if they had COVID,” he said, so “I feel more secure in the hospital than in the community.” Masks have become so habitual they’re like part of your regular clothing, he said – you feel incomplete if you don’t have one.

While ad hoc approaches to contact tracing may be useful in the current stage of the pandemic, they are likely to be short-lived: Once a community’s positivity rate falls, the CDC’s guidance suggests how hospitals can return to full contact tracing.

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

Like most health care workers at his hospital in Lafayette, Ind., Ramesh Adhikari, MD, FHM, occasionally gets an email noting that a patient he saw later tested positive for COVID-19. He’s reminded to self-monitor for symptoms. But 10 months into the pandemic, it has become increasingly unlikely for contact tracing investigations to result in clinicians quarantining.

The very act of working in the hospital, Dr. Adhikari said, means being likely to see COVID-19 every day, whether in a known patient or an asymptomatic person who tests positive later. If hospitalists had to quarantine after every interaction with a COVID-positive person, there wouldn’t be anyone left to do their jobs.

“It’s really hard to do [contact tracing] in health care workers thoroughly because of the way we work,” Dr. Adhikari said. “It’s impossible to do it absolutely.”

In a recently updated guidance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended more leeway in contact tracing when community rates of COVID-19 surge, even allowing that contact tracing “may not be possible” in certain situations. And by defining an exposure more narrowly – health care workers are only considered “exposed” if their contact was more than 15 minutes or lacking in some form of PPE – the guidelines suggest that hospitals can rely more on universal PPE and screening protocols, as Dr. Adhikari’s hospital does, and less on extensive contact tracing to curtail viral spread.

Accordingly, while contact tracing has gotten more lax, doctors say, universal precautions – including full PPE and screening of symptoms for patients and health care workers – have become more stringent.

It’s a shift from the beginning of the pandemic. At first, CDC recommended wearing masks only during aerosol-producing procedures. Exposures were frequently reported and health care workers sent home. With more evidence in favor of stricter PPE requirements, hospitals including the one where Shyam Odeti, MD, FHM, works in Johnson City, Tenn., have adopted a universal precaution strategy – requiring masks everywhere and a gown, face shield, gloves, and N95 to enter a COVID-positive patient’s room. Thus, most exposures fall into that low-risk category.

“If I get it and am asymptomatic, I don’t think my colleagues would be exposed by any means because of these stringent policies being enforced,” said Dr. Odeti, a hospitalist who often wears a surgical mask on top of his N95 all day. “And U.S. health care is not in a state that can afford to quarantine health care workers for 14 days.”
 

Can universal PPE precautions supplant contact tracing?

The extent of contact tracing varies by hospital. Larger university and community hospitals often have infection control and occupational health teams that can do their own contact tracing, while smaller institutions can’t always spare staff. And some state health departments get involved with contact tracing of health care workers while others do not.

“I would venture to say that most hospitals are doing something in terms of contact tracing,” said Pam Falk, MPH, CIC, a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology’s COVID-19 task force and an infection control consultant. “It kind of depends on their bandwidth.”

But there’s no longer a norm. Outside of a pandemic, with ample staffing and far fewer instances that need to be investigated, standards for contact tracing are higher, Dr. Falk said: When a patient is found to have an airborne disease such as tuberculosis, measles, mumps, or chickenpox, a hospital’s infection prevention team should investigate, confirm the diagnosis and identify everyone who was exposed. The hospital’s occupational health team assists in deciding who will likely need prophylactic treatment and if employees should be furloughed. The thoroughness of such measures has always depended on a hospital’s bandwidth.

Because PPE seems to be able to contain COVID-19 better than some of the older diseases targeted by contact tracing, universal protections may be a reasonable alternative in current circumstances, doctors said – if PPE is available.

“At the end of the day, universal source control with surgical masks – and ideally eye protection for clinicians as well – should prevent most transmissions,” said Aaron Richterman, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored a JAMA commentary on decreased transmission rates in hospitals.

Contact tracing is still useful, though, to identify weaknesses in universal protection measures, he said.

“I don’t think it’s worth abandoning. It’s like a tool in the toolbox. All are imperfect, and none work 100% of the time,” Dr. Richterman said, but using all of them can achieve a fairly high measure of safety. Of the tools, universal masking likely works the best, he contends, so it should be the top pick for hospitals without resources to use all of the tools.

A recent incident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston is a case study in how contact tracing can work together with universal protections to identify cracks in the system, said Dr. Richterman, who worked at the hospital earlier in the pandemic.

Mass General Brigham adopted a universal masking policy for staff and patients in March 2020. Then, when the system experienced an outbreak in September, the hospital did “a very detailed public evaluation that included contact tracing and universal testing,” Dr. Richterman said. Testing even included genetic analysis of the virus to confirm which cases were hospital acquired. In the end, the hospital identified weaknesses in infection control that could be rectified, such as clinicians eating too close together.

“The approach is not to point fingers, but to say: ‘What’s wrong with the system and how do we improve?’ ” Dr. Richterman said. “To ask, why did that maskless transmission happen? Is there not enough space to eat? Are people working too many hours? It’s useful for systems to understand where transmissions are happening.”

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist in Dothan, Ala., is comfortable without much contact tracing as long as there is universal PPE use. His hospital informs clinicians of exposures, but “basically we’re trained to treat every patient as if they had COVID,” he said, so “I feel more secure in the hospital than in the community.” Masks have become so habitual they’re like part of your regular clothing, he said – you feel incomplete if you don’t have one.

While ad hoc approaches to contact tracing may be useful in the current stage of the pandemic, they are likely to be short-lived: Once a community’s positivity rate falls, the CDC’s guidance suggests how hospitals can return to full contact tracing.

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

Like most health care workers at his hospital in Lafayette, Ind., Ramesh Adhikari, MD, FHM, occasionally gets an email noting that a patient he saw later tested positive for COVID-19. He’s reminded to self-monitor for symptoms. But 10 months into the pandemic, it has become increasingly unlikely for contact tracing investigations to result in clinicians quarantining.

The very act of working in the hospital, Dr. Adhikari said, means being likely to see COVID-19 every day, whether in a known patient or an asymptomatic person who tests positive later. If hospitalists had to quarantine after every interaction with a COVID-positive person, there wouldn’t be anyone left to do their jobs.

“It’s really hard to do [contact tracing] in health care workers thoroughly because of the way we work,” Dr. Adhikari said. “It’s impossible to do it absolutely.”

In a recently updated guidance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extended more leeway in contact tracing when community rates of COVID-19 surge, even allowing that contact tracing “may not be possible” in certain situations. And by defining an exposure more narrowly – health care workers are only considered “exposed” if their contact was more than 15 minutes or lacking in some form of PPE – the guidelines suggest that hospitals can rely more on universal PPE and screening protocols, as Dr. Adhikari’s hospital does, and less on extensive contact tracing to curtail viral spread.

Accordingly, while contact tracing has gotten more lax, doctors say, universal precautions – including full PPE and screening of symptoms for patients and health care workers – have become more stringent.

It’s a shift from the beginning of the pandemic. At first, CDC recommended wearing masks only during aerosol-producing procedures. Exposures were frequently reported and health care workers sent home. With more evidence in favor of stricter PPE requirements, hospitals including the one where Shyam Odeti, MD, FHM, works in Johnson City, Tenn., have adopted a universal precaution strategy – requiring masks everywhere and a gown, face shield, gloves, and N95 to enter a COVID-positive patient’s room. Thus, most exposures fall into that low-risk category.

“If I get it and am asymptomatic, I don’t think my colleagues would be exposed by any means because of these stringent policies being enforced,” said Dr. Odeti, a hospitalist who often wears a surgical mask on top of his N95 all day. “And U.S. health care is not in a state that can afford to quarantine health care workers for 14 days.”
 

Can universal PPE precautions supplant contact tracing?

The extent of contact tracing varies by hospital. Larger university and community hospitals often have infection control and occupational health teams that can do their own contact tracing, while smaller institutions can’t always spare staff. And some state health departments get involved with contact tracing of health care workers while others do not.

“I would venture to say that most hospitals are doing something in terms of contact tracing,” said Pam Falk, MPH, CIC, a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology’s COVID-19 task force and an infection control consultant. “It kind of depends on their bandwidth.”

But there’s no longer a norm. Outside of a pandemic, with ample staffing and far fewer instances that need to be investigated, standards for contact tracing are higher, Dr. Falk said: When a patient is found to have an airborne disease such as tuberculosis, measles, mumps, or chickenpox, a hospital’s infection prevention team should investigate, confirm the diagnosis and identify everyone who was exposed. The hospital’s occupational health team assists in deciding who will likely need prophylactic treatment and if employees should be furloughed. The thoroughness of such measures has always depended on a hospital’s bandwidth.

Because PPE seems to be able to contain COVID-19 better than some of the older diseases targeted by contact tracing, universal protections may be a reasonable alternative in current circumstances, doctors said – if PPE is available.

“At the end of the day, universal source control with surgical masks – and ideally eye protection for clinicians as well – should prevent most transmissions,” said Aaron Richterman, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored a JAMA commentary on decreased transmission rates in hospitals.

Contact tracing is still useful, though, to identify weaknesses in universal protection measures, he said.

“I don’t think it’s worth abandoning. It’s like a tool in the toolbox. All are imperfect, and none work 100% of the time,” Dr. Richterman said, but using all of them can achieve a fairly high measure of safety. Of the tools, universal masking likely works the best, he contends, so it should be the top pick for hospitals without resources to use all of the tools.

A recent incident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston is a case study in how contact tracing can work together with universal protections to identify cracks in the system, said Dr. Richterman, who worked at the hospital earlier in the pandemic.

Mass General Brigham adopted a universal masking policy for staff and patients in March 2020. Then, when the system experienced an outbreak in September, the hospital did “a very detailed public evaluation that included contact tracing and universal testing,” Dr. Richterman said. Testing even included genetic analysis of the virus to confirm which cases were hospital acquired. In the end, the hospital identified weaknesses in infection control that could be rectified, such as clinicians eating too close together.

“The approach is not to point fingers, but to say: ‘What’s wrong with the system and how do we improve?’ ” Dr. Richterman said. “To ask, why did that maskless transmission happen? Is there not enough space to eat? Are people working too many hours? It’s useful for systems to understand where transmissions are happening.”

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist in Dothan, Ala., is comfortable without much contact tracing as long as there is universal PPE use. His hospital informs clinicians of exposures, but “basically we’re trained to treat every patient as if they had COVID,” he said, so “I feel more secure in the hospital than in the community.” Masks have become so habitual they’re like part of your regular clothing, he said – you feel incomplete if you don’t have one.

While ad hoc approaches to contact tracing may be useful in the current stage of the pandemic, they are likely to be short-lived: Once a community’s positivity rate falls, the CDC’s guidance suggests how hospitals can return to full contact tracing.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.