MDedge Surgery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No second-class vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weakened standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No second-class vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weakened standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaphylaxis case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No second-class vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weakened standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus esophagectomy can be performed safely in well-selected older patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, according to a review 282 patients treated from 2004 through 2019 at Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans.

Although guidelines recommend curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACR) followed by surgical resection, it’s been demonstrated in several studies that “older patients with potentially curable stage II and III disease are often not considered” for the approach out of concern that they will not tolerate it, said investigators led by W. Peter Sawyer, MD, a surgery resident at Ochsner.

Outcomes, however, were comparable in the study when 188 patients aged younger than 70 years were compared with 94 patients aged 70 years or older, including 4 who were over 80 years old. “Patients 70 years and older should be evaluated for optimal curative therapy including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection,” the investigators concluded.

The patients had NACR followed by esophagectomy mostly for stage 2 disease. The average age was 59 years in the younger group and 74 years in the older group.

Older patients had a higher prevalence of cardiac, vascular, and pulmonary comorbidities and were more likely to have postoperative atrial arrhythmia and urinary retention.

However, there were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (about 10 days in both groups), operative mortality (4.3% in the older group versus 3.8% in the younger group), or the incidence of postoperative grade 3 or higher complications (27.7% older versus 38.3% younger). Age-adjusted survival was 44.8% at 5 years among patients 70 years and older versus 39% among younger patients.

Comorbidity scores, clinically positive nodes, and clinical T3 tumors predicted worse survival on multivariate analysis, but age did not.

“Age itself doesn’t represent a contraindication to aggressive treatment. It is the patient’s comorbidities and functional status which are more important to predict the risk of complications after esophagectomy,” said Daniela Molena, MD, director of the esophageal surgery program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, when asked for a comment.

The team noted that the results “reflect careful patient selection as well as thorough preoperative evaluation and preparation.” Patients with unstable or severe chronic heart disease, moderate to severe chronic liver disease, or severe chronic pulmonary disease were ineligible for surgery. Eligible patients had cardiac stress testing and were strongly encouraged to begin daily exercise. Nutritional deficiencies were addressed before surgery.

The Ochsner team is one of several in recent years that have pushed back on age limits for aggressive esophageal cancer treatment.

A British team, for example, reviewed 992 transthoracic esophagectomies, including 330 in patients 70 years or older, and found lower in-hospital mortality and pulmonary and cardiac morbidity for older patients than previously reported.

They concluded that “age should not be a discriminating factor when determining the treatment strategy for patients presenting with curative esophageal cancer.”

Even so, undertreatment remains “a big problem for elderly patients, and since the median age at diagnoses is 68 years, this is a problem for a large portion of patients with esophageal cancer,” Dr. Molena said.

“Patients can be cured of this disease” with aggressive treatment, but “unfortunately, patients often are not evaluated by a surgeon or referred to a high-volume center and are discouraged from undergoing surgery after an apparent good response to chemoradiation,” partly because esophagectomy has “unfairly gained a bad reputation over the years,” she said.

“There are clear data that outcomes of esophagectomy are very good at high volume centers with minimally invasive techniques and the ability to promptly identify and treat complications,” Dr. Molena said.

Overall, 52% of patients aged 70 years or older with stage II and III disease underwent NACR plus surgery at Ochsner, suggesting that “optimal, curative intent triple modality therapy [chemo, radiation, and esophagectomy] can be used successfully in a sizable segment of the elderly population,” the investigators said.

Treatment has changed significantly at Ochsner since the start of the review period in 2004, including a shift away from a fluorouracil and cisplatin doublet in favor of carboplatin and paclitaxel, which is less toxic, and greater use of minimally invasive surgery. The proportion of people 70 years or older undergoing triple modality treatment has been steadily increasing.

There was no outside funding. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Molena had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus esophagectomy can be performed safely in well-selected older patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, according to a review 282 patients treated from 2004 through 2019 at Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans.

Although guidelines recommend curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACR) followed by surgical resection, it’s been demonstrated in several studies that “older patients with potentially curable stage II and III disease are often not considered” for the approach out of concern that they will not tolerate it, said investigators led by W. Peter Sawyer, MD, a surgery resident at Ochsner.

Outcomes, however, were comparable in the study when 188 patients aged younger than 70 years were compared with 94 patients aged 70 years or older, including 4 who were over 80 years old. “Patients 70 years and older should be evaluated for optimal curative therapy including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection,” the investigators concluded.

The patients had NACR followed by esophagectomy mostly for stage 2 disease. The average age was 59 years in the younger group and 74 years in the older group.

Older patients had a higher prevalence of cardiac, vascular, and pulmonary comorbidities and were more likely to have postoperative atrial arrhythmia and urinary retention.

However, there were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (about 10 days in both groups), operative mortality (4.3% in the older group versus 3.8% in the younger group), or the incidence of postoperative grade 3 or higher complications (27.7% older versus 38.3% younger). Age-adjusted survival was 44.8% at 5 years among patients 70 years and older versus 39% among younger patients.

Comorbidity scores, clinically positive nodes, and clinical T3 tumors predicted worse survival on multivariate analysis, but age did not.

“Age itself doesn’t represent a contraindication to aggressive treatment. It is the patient’s comorbidities and functional status which are more important to predict the risk of complications after esophagectomy,” said Daniela Molena, MD, director of the esophageal surgery program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, when asked for a comment.

The team noted that the results “reflect careful patient selection as well as thorough preoperative evaluation and preparation.” Patients with unstable or severe chronic heart disease, moderate to severe chronic liver disease, or severe chronic pulmonary disease were ineligible for surgery. Eligible patients had cardiac stress testing and were strongly encouraged to begin daily exercise. Nutritional deficiencies were addressed before surgery.

The Ochsner team is one of several in recent years that have pushed back on age limits for aggressive esophageal cancer treatment.

A British team, for example, reviewed 992 transthoracic esophagectomies, including 330 in patients 70 years or older, and found lower in-hospital mortality and pulmonary and cardiac morbidity for older patients than previously reported.

They concluded that “age should not be a discriminating factor when determining the treatment strategy for patients presenting with curative esophageal cancer.”

Even so, undertreatment remains “a big problem for elderly patients, and since the median age at diagnoses is 68 years, this is a problem for a large portion of patients with esophageal cancer,” Dr. Molena said.

“Patients can be cured of this disease” with aggressive treatment, but “unfortunately, patients often are not evaluated by a surgeon or referred to a high-volume center and are discouraged from undergoing surgery after an apparent good response to chemoradiation,” partly because esophagectomy has “unfairly gained a bad reputation over the years,” she said.

“There are clear data that outcomes of esophagectomy are very good at high volume centers with minimally invasive techniques and the ability to promptly identify and treat complications,” Dr. Molena said.

Overall, 52% of patients aged 70 years or older with stage II and III disease underwent NACR plus surgery at Ochsner, suggesting that “optimal, curative intent triple modality therapy [chemo, radiation, and esophagectomy] can be used successfully in a sizable segment of the elderly population,” the investigators said.

Treatment has changed significantly at Ochsner since the start of the review period in 2004, including a shift away from a fluorouracil and cisplatin doublet in favor of carboplatin and paclitaxel, which is less toxic, and greater use of minimally invasive surgery. The proportion of people 70 years or older undergoing triple modality treatment has been steadily increasing.

There was no outside funding. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Molena had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus esophagectomy can be performed safely in well-selected older patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, according to a review 282 patients treated from 2004 through 2019 at Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans.

Although guidelines recommend curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACR) followed by surgical resection, it’s been demonstrated in several studies that “older patients with potentially curable stage II and III disease are often not considered” for the approach out of concern that they will not tolerate it, said investigators led by W. Peter Sawyer, MD, a surgery resident at Ochsner.

Outcomes, however, were comparable in the study when 188 patients aged younger than 70 years were compared with 94 patients aged 70 years or older, including 4 who were over 80 years old. “Patients 70 years and older should be evaluated for optimal curative therapy including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection,” the investigators concluded.

The patients had NACR followed by esophagectomy mostly for stage 2 disease. The average age was 59 years in the younger group and 74 years in the older group.

Older patients had a higher prevalence of cardiac, vascular, and pulmonary comorbidities and were more likely to have postoperative atrial arrhythmia and urinary retention.

However, there were no statistically significant differences in hospital length of stay (about 10 days in both groups), operative mortality (4.3% in the older group versus 3.8% in the younger group), or the incidence of postoperative grade 3 or higher complications (27.7% older versus 38.3% younger). Age-adjusted survival was 44.8% at 5 years among patients 70 years and older versus 39% among younger patients.

Comorbidity scores, clinically positive nodes, and clinical T3 tumors predicted worse survival on multivariate analysis, but age did not.

“Age itself doesn’t represent a contraindication to aggressive treatment. It is the patient’s comorbidities and functional status which are more important to predict the risk of complications after esophagectomy,” said Daniela Molena, MD, director of the esophageal surgery program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, when asked for a comment.

The team noted that the results “reflect careful patient selection as well as thorough preoperative evaluation and preparation.” Patients with unstable or severe chronic heart disease, moderate to severe chronic liver disease, or severe chronic pulmonary disease were ineligible for surgery. Eligible patients had cardiac stress testing and were strongly encouraged to begin daily exercise. Nutritional deficiencies were addressed before surgery.

The Ochsner team is one of several in recent years that have pushed back on age limits for aggressive esophageal cancer treatment.

A British team, for example, reviewed 992 transthoracic esophagectomies, including 330 in patients 70 years or older, and found lower in-hospital mortality and pulmonary and cardiac morbidity for older patients than previously reported.

They concluded that “age should not be a discriminating factor when determining the treatment strategy for patients presenting with curative esophageal cancer.”

Even so, undertreatment remains “a big problem for elderly patients, and since the median age at diagnoses is 68 years, this is a problem for a large portion of patients with esophageal cancer,” Dr. Molena said.

“Patients can be cured of this disease” with aggressive treatment, but “unfortunately, patients often are not evaluated by a surgeon or referred to a high-volume center and are discouraged from undergoing surgery after an apparent good response to chemoradiation,” partly because esophagectomy has “unfairly gained a bad reputation over the years,” she said.

“There are clear data that outcomes of esophagectomy are very good at high volume centers with minimally invasive techniques and the ability to promptly identify and treat complications,” Dr. Molena said.

Overall, 52% of patients aged 70 years or older with stage II and III disease underwent NACR plus surgery at Ochsner, suggesting that “optimal, curative intent triple modality therapy [chemo, radiation, and esophagectomy] can be used successfully in a sizable segment of the elderly population,” the investigators said.

Treatment has changed significantly at Ochsner since the start of the review period in 2004, including a shift away from a fluorouracil and cisplatin doublet in favor of carboplatin and paclitaxel, which is less toxic, and greater use of minimally invasive surgery. The proportion of people 70 years or older undergoing triple modality treatment has been steadily increasing.

There was no outside funding. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Molena had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy may not be appropriate in surgical cases where women undergo a laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy, according to recent research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The results of our randomized trial do not support the routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy at the time of laparotomy incision closure in women who are undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancies or in morbidly obese women who are undergoing laparotomy for benign indications,” Mario M. Leitao Jr., MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Leitao and colleagues randomized 663 patients, stratified by body mass index (BMI) after skin closure, to receive negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or standard gauze after undergoing a laparotomy for gynecological surgery between March 2016 and August 2019. Patients in the study were aged a median 61 years with a median BMI of 26 kg/m², but 32 patients with a BMI of 40 or higher who underwent a laparotomy for gynecologic surgery regardless of indication were also included in the study. Most women (80%-82%) were undergoing surgery to treat ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. The most common medical comorbidities in both groups were hypertension (34%-35%) and diabetes (8%-14%). Information on race of patients was not included in the baseline characteristics for the study.

In total, 505 patients were available for evaluation after surgery, which consisted of 254 patients in the NPWT group and 251 patients in the standard gauze group, with 495 patients (98%) having a malignant indication. The researchers examined the incidence of wound complication up to 30 days after surgery.

The results showed a similar rate of wound complications in the NPWT group (44 patients; 17.3%), compared with the group receiving standard gauze (41 patients; 16.3%), with an absolute risk difference between groups of 1% (90% confidence interval, –4.5 to 6.5%; P = .77). Nearly all patients who developed wound complications in both NPWT (92%) and standard gauze (95%) groups had the wound complication diagnosis occur after discharge from the hospital. Dr. Leitao and colleagues noted similarities between groups with regard to wound complications, with most patients having grade 1 complications, and said there were no instances of patients requiring surgery for complications. Among patients in the NPWT group, 33 patients developed skin blistering, compared with 3 patients in the standard gauze group (13% vs. 1.2%; P < .001). After an interim analysis consisting of 444 patients, the study was halted because of “low probability of showing a difference between the two groups at the end of the study.”

The analysis of patients with a BMI of 40 or higher showed 7 of 15 patients (47%) developed wound complications in the NPWT group and 6 of 17 patients (35%) in the standard gauze group (P = .51). In post hoc analyses, the researchers found a median BMI of 26 (range, 17-60) was significantly associated with not developing a wound complication, compared with a BMI of 32 (range, 17-56) (P < .001), and that 41% of patients with a BMI of at least 40 experienced wound complications, compared with 15% of patients with a BMI of less than 40 (P < .001). There was an independent association between developing a wound complication and increasing BMI, according to a multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14).
 

Applicability of results unclear for patients with higher BMI

Sarah M. Temkin, MD, a gynecologic oncologist who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that the results by Dr. Leitao and colleagues answer the question of whether patients undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancy require NPWT, but raised questions about patient selection in the study.

“I think it’s hard to take data from this type of high-end surgical practice and apply it to the general population,” she said, who noted the median BMI of 26 for patients included in the study. A study that included only patients with a BMI of 40 or higher “would have made these results more applicable.”

The low rate of wound complications in the study could potentially be explained by patient selection, Dr. Temkin explained. She cited her own retrospective study from 2016 that showed a wound complication rate of 27.3% for patients receiving prophylactic NPWT where the BMI for the group was 41.29, compared with a complication rate of 19.7% for patients receiving standard care who had a BMI of 30.67.

“It’s hard to cross-trial compare, but that’s significantly higher than what they saw in this prospective study, and I would say that’s a difference with the patient population,” she said. “I think the question of how to reduce surgical-site infections and wound complications in the heavy patient with comorbidities is still unanswered.”

The question is important because patients with a higher BMI and medical comorbidities “still need cancer surgery and methods to reduce the morbidity of that surgery,” Dr. Temkin said. “I think this is an unmet need.”

This study was funded in part by a support grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, and KCI/Acelity provided part of the study protocol. Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, stock ownership, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions with AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Bovie Medical, C Surgeries, CMR, ConMed, Covidien, Ethicon, GlaxoSmithKline, GRAIL, Intuitive Surgical, JNJ, Medtronic, Merck, Mylan, Olympus, Stryker/Novadaq, TransEnterix, UpToDate, and Verthermia. Dr. Temkin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy may not be appropriate in surgical cases where women undergo a laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy, according to recent research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The results of our randomized trial do not support the routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy at the time of laparotomy incision closure in women who are undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancies or in morbidly obese women who are undergoing laparotomy for benign indications,” Mario M. Leitao Jr., MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Leitao and colleagues randomized 663 patients, stratified by body mass index (BMI) after skin closure, to receive negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or standard gauze after undergoing a laparotomy for gynecological surgery between March 2016 and August 2019. Patients in the study were aged a median 61 years with a median BMI of 26 kg/m², but 32 patients with a BMI of 40 or higher who underwent a laparotomy for gynecologic surgery regardless of indication were also included in the study. Most women (80%-82%) were undergoing surgery to treat ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. The most common medical comorbidities in both groups were hypertension (34%-35%) and diabetes (8%-14%). Information on race of patients was not included in the baseline characteristics for the study.

In total, 505 patients were available for evaluation after surgery, which consisted of 254 patients in the NPWT group and 251 patients in the standard gauze group, with 495 patients (98%) having a malignant indication. The researchers examined the incidence of wound complication up to 30 days after surgery.

The results showed a similar rate of wound complications in the NPWT group (44 patients; 17.3%), compared with the group receiving standard gauze (41 patients; 16.3%), with an absolute risk difference between groups of 1% (90% confidence interval, –4.5 to 6.5%; P = .77). Nearly all patients who developed wound complications in both NPWT (92%) and standard gauze (95%) groups had the wound complication diagnosis occur after discharge from the hospital. Dr. Leitao and colleagues noted similarities between groups with regard to wound complications, with most patients having grade 1 complications, and said there were no instances of patients requiring surgery for complications. Among patients in the NPWT group, 33 patients developed skin blistering, compared with 3 patients in the standard gauze group (13% vs. 1.2%; P < .001). After an interim analysis consisting of 444 patients, the study was halted because of “low probability of showing a difference between the two groups at the end of the study.”

The analysis of patients with a BMI of 40 or higher showed 7 of 15 patients (47%) developed wound complications in the NPWT group and 6 of 17 patients (35%) in the standard gauze group (P = .51). In post hoc analyses, the researchers found a median BMI of 26 (range, 17-60) was significantly associated with not developing a wound complication, compared with a BMI of 32 (range, 17-56) (P < .001), and that 41% of patients with a BMI of at least 40 experienced wound complications, compared with 15% of patients with a BMI of less than 40 (P < .001). There was an independent association between developing a wound complication and increasing BMI, according to a multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14).
 

Applicability of results unclear for patients with higher BMI

Sarah M. Temkin, MD, a gynecologic oncologist who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that the results by Dr. Leitao and colleagues answer the question of whether patients undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancy require NPWT, but raised questions about patient selection in the study.

“I think it’s hard to take data from this type of high-end surgical practice and apply it to the general population,” she said, who noted the median BMI of 26 for patients included in the study. A study that included only patients with a BMI of 40 or higher “would have made these results more applicable.”

The low rate of wound complications in the study could potentially be explained by patient selection, Dr. Temkin explained. She cited her own retrospective study from 2016 that showed a wound complication rate of 27.3% for patients receiving prophylactic NPWT where the BMI for the group was 41.29, compared with a complication rate of 19.7% for patients receiving standard care who had a BMI of 30.67.

“It’s hard to cross-trial compare, but that’s significantly higher than what they saw in this prospective study, and I would say that’s a difference with the patient population,” she said. “I think the question of how to reduce surgical-site infections and wound complications in the heavy patient with comorbidities is still unanswered.”

The question is important because patients with a higher BMI and medical comorbidities “still need cancer surgery and methods to reduce the morbidity of that surgery,” Dr. Temkin said. “I think this is an unmet need.”

This study was funded in part by a support grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, and KCI/Acelity provided part of the study protocol. Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, stock ownership, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions with AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Bovie Medical, C Surgeries, CMR, ConMed, Covidien, Ethicon, GlaxoSmithKline, GRAIL, Intuitive Surgical, JNJ, Medtronic, Merck, Mylan, Olympus, Stryker/Novadaq, TransEnterix, UpToDate, and Verthermia. Dr. Temkin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy may not be appropriate in surgical cases where women undergo a laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy, according to recent research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The results of our randomized trial do not support the routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy at the time of laparotomy incision closure in women who are undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancies or in morbidly obese women who are undergoing laparotomy for benign indications,” Mario M. Leitao Jr., MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Leitao and colleagues randomized 663 patients, stratified by body mass index (BMI) after skin closure, to receive negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or standard gauze after undergoing a laparotomy for gynecological surgery between March 2016 and August 2019. Patients in the study were aged a median 61 years with a median BMI of 26 kg/m², but 32 patients with a BMI of 40 or higher who underwent a laparotomy for gynecologic surgery regardless of indication were also included in the study. Most women (80%-82%) were undergoing surgery to treat ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. The most common medical comorbidities in both groups were hypertension (34%-35%) and diabetes (8%-14%). Information on race of patients was not included in the baseline characteristics for the study.

In total, 505 patients were available for evaluation after surgery, which consisted of 254 patients in the NPWT group and 251 patients in the standard gauze group, with 495 patients (98%) having a malignant indication. The researchers examined the incidence of wound complication up to 30 days after surgery.

The results showed a similar rate of wound complications in the NPWT group (44 patients; 17.3%), compared with the group receiving standard gauze (41 patients; 16.3%), with an absolute risk difference between groups of 1% (90% confidence interval, –4.5 to 6.5%; P = .77). Nearly all patients who developed wound complications in both NPWT (92%) and standard gauze (95%) groups had the wound complication diagnosis occur after discharge from the hospital. Dr. Leitao and colleagues noted similarities between groups with regard to wound complications, with most patients having grade 1 complications, and said there were no instances of patients requiring surgery for complications. Among patients in the NPWT group, 33 patients developed skin blistering, compared with 3 patients in the standard gauze group (13% vs. 1.2%; P < .001). After an interim analysis consisting of 444 patients, the study was halted because of “low probability of showing a difference between the two groups at the end of the study.”

The analysis of patients with a BMI of 40 or higher showed 7 of 15 patients (47%) developed wound complications in the NPWT group and 6 of 17 patients (35%) in the standard gauze group (P = .51). In post hoc analyses, the researchers found a median BMI of 26 (range, 17-60) was significantly associated with not developing a wound complication, compared with a BMI of 32 (range, 17-56) (P < .001), and that 41% of patients with a BMI of at least 40 experienced wound complications, compared with 15% of patients with a BMI of less than 40 (P < .001). There was an independent association between developing a wound complication and increasing BMI, according to a multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14).
 

Applicability of results unclear for patients with higher BMI

Sarah M. Temkin, MD, a gynecologic oncologist who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that the results by Dr. Leitao and colleagues answer the question of whether patients undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancy require NPWT, but raised questions about patient selection in the study.

“I think it’s hard to take data from this type of high-end surgical practice and apply it to the general population,” she said, who noted the median BMI of 26 for patients included in the study. A study that included only patients with a BMI of 40 or higher “would have made these results more applicable.”

The low rate of wound complications in the study could potentially be explained by patient selection, Dr. Temkin explained. She cited her own retrospective study from 2016 that showed a wound complication rate of 27.3% for patients receiving prophylactic NPWT where the BMI for the group was 41.29, compared with a complication rate of 19.7% for patients receiving standard care who had a BMI of 30.67.

“It’s hard to cross-trial compare, but that’s significantly higher than what they saw in this prospective study, and I would say that’s a difference with the patient population,” she said. “I think the question of how to reduce surgical-site infections and wound complications in the heavy patient with comorbidities is still unanswered.”

The question is important because patients with a higher BMI and medical comorbidities “still need cancer surgery and methods to reduce the morbidity of that surgery,” Dr. Temkin said. “I think this is an unmet need.”

This study was funded in part by a support grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, and KCI/Acelity provided part of the study protocol. Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, stock ownership, consultancies, and speaker’s bureau positions with AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Bovie Medical, C Surgeries, CMR, ConMed, Covidien, Ethicon, GlaxoSmithKline, GRAIL, Intuitive Surgical, JNJ, Medtronic, Merck, Mylan, Olympus, Stryker/Novadaq, TransEnterix, UpToDate, and Verthermia. Dr. Temkin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

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

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Doctors say a woman in Michigan contracted COVID-19 and died last fall 2 months after receiving a tainted double-lung transplant from a donor who turned out to harbor the virus that causes the disease – despite showing no signs of illness and initially testing negative.

Officials at the University of Michigan Medical School suggested it may be the first proven case of COVID-19 in the U.S. in which the virus was transmitted via an organ transplant. A surgeon who handled the donor lungs was also infected with the virus and fell ill but later recovered.

The incident appears to be isolated – the only confirmed case among nearly 40,000 transplants in 2020. But it has led to calls for more thorough testing of lung transplant donors, with samples taken from deep within the donor lungs as well as the nose and throat, said Dr. Daniel Kaul, director of Michigan Medicine’s transplant infectious disease service.

“We would absolutely not have used the lungs if we’d had a positive COVID-19 test,” said Dr. Kaul, who coauthored a report about the case in the American Journal of Transplantation.

The virus was transmitted when lungs from a woman from the Upper Midwest, who died after suffering a severe brain injury in a car accident, were transplanted into a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease at University Hospital in Ann Arbor. The nose and throat samples routinely collected from both organ donors and recipients tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid.

“All the screening that we normally do and are able to do, we did,” Dr. Kaul said.

Three days after the operation, however, the recipient spiked a fever; her blood pressure fell and her breathing became labored. Imaging showed signs of lung infection.

As her condition worsened, the patient developed septic shock and heart function problems. Doctors decided to test for SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Kaul said. Samples from her new lungs came back positive.

Suspicious about the origin of the infection, doctors returned to samples from the transplant donor. A molecular test of a swab from the donor’s nose and throat, taken 48 hours after her lungs were procured, had been negative for SARS-Cov-2. The donor’s family told doctors she had no history of recent travel or COVID-19 symptoms and no known exposure to anyone with the disease.

But doctors had kept a sample of fluid washed from deep within the donor lungs. When they tested that fluid, it was positive for the virus. Four days after the transplant, the surgeon who handled the donor lungs and performed the surgery tested positive, too. Genetic screening revealed that the transplant recipient and the surgeon had been infected by the donor. Ten other members of the transplant team tested negative for the virus.

The transplant recipient deteriorated rapidly, developing multisystem organ failure. Doctors tried known treatments for COVID-19, including remdesivir, a newly approved drug, and convalescent blood plasma from people previously infected with the disease. Eventually, she was placed on the last-resort option of ECMO, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, to no avail. Life support was withdrawn, and she died 61 days after the transplant.

Dr. Kaul called the incident “a tragic case.”

While the Michigan case marks the first confirmed incident in the U.S. of transmission through a transplant, others have been suspected. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report reviewed eight possible cases of what’s known as donor-derived infection that occurred last spring, but concluded the most likely source of transmission of the COVID-19 virus in those cases was in a community or health care setting.

Before this incident, it was not clear whether the COVID-19 virus could be transmitted through solid organ transplants, though it’s well documented with other respiratory viruses. Donor transmission of H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza has been detected almost exclusively in lung transplant recipients, Dr. Kaul noted.

While it’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through infected lungs, it remains uncertain whether other organs affected by COVID-19 – hearts, livers and kidneys, for instance – can transmit the virus, too.

“It seems for non-lung donors that it may be very difficult to transmit COVID-19, even if the donor has COVID-19,” Dr. Kaul said.

Organ donors have been tested routinely for SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic, though it’s not required by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, which oversees transplants in the U.S. But the Michigan case underscores the need for more extensive sampling before transplant, especially in areas with high rates of covid transmission, Dr. Kaul said.

When it comes to lungs, that means making sure to test samples from the donor’s lower respiratory tract, as well as from the nose and throat. Obtaining and testing such samples from donors can be difficult to carry out in a timely fashion. There’s also the risk of introducing infection into the donated lungs, Dr. Kaul said.

Because no organs other than lungs were used, the Michigan case doesn’t provide insight into testing protocols for other organs.

Overall, viral transmissions from organ donors to recipients remain rare, occurring in fewer than 1% of transplant recipients, research shows. The medical risks facing ailing patients who reject a donor organ are generally far higher, said Dr. David Klassen, chief medical officer with the United Network for Organ Sharing, the federal contractor that runs the OPTN.

“The risks of turning down transplants are catastrophic,” he said. “I don’t think patients should be afraid of the transplant process.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Doctors say a woman in Michigan contracted COVID-19 and died last fall 2 months after receiving a tainted double-lung transplant from a donor who turned out to harbor the virus that causes the disease – despite showing no signs of illness and initially testing negative.

Officials at the University of Michigan Medical School suggested it may be the first proven case of COVID-19 in the U.S. in which the virus was transmitted via an organ transplant. A surgeon who handled the donor lungs was also infected with the virus and fell ill but later recovered.

The incident appears to be isolated – the only confirmed case among nearly 40,000 transplants in 2020. But it has led to calls for more thorough testing of lung transplant donors, with samples taken from deep within the donor lungs as well as the nose and throat, said Dr. Daniel Kaul, director of Michigan Medicine’s transplant infectious disease service.

“We would absolutely not have used the lungs if we’d had a positive COVID-19 test,” said Dr. Kaul, who coauthored a report about the case in the American Journal of Transplantation.

The virus was transmitted when lungs from a woman from the Upper Midwest, who died after suffering a severe brain injury in a car accident, were transplanted into a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease at University Hospital in Ann Arbor. The nose and throat samples routinely collected from both organ donors and recipients tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid.

“All the screening that we normally do and are able to do, we did,” Dr. Kaul said.

Three days after the operation, however, the recipient spiked a fever; her blood pressure fell and her breathing became labored. Imaging showed signs of lung infection.

As her condition worsened, the patient developed septic shock and heart function problems. Doctors decided to test for SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Kaul said. Samples from her new lungs came back positive.

Suspicious about the origin of the infection, doctors returned to samples from the transplant donor. A molecular test of a swab from the donor’s nose and throat, taken 48 hours after her lungs were procured, had been negative for SARS-Cov-2. The donor’s family told doctors she had no history of recent travel or COVID-19 symptoms and no known exposure to anyone with the disease.

But doctors had kept a sample of fluid washed from deep within the donor lungs. When they tested that fluid, it was positive for the virus. Four days after the transplant, the surgeon who handled the donor lungs and performed the surgery tested positive, too. Genetic screening revealed that the transplant recipient and the surgeon had been infected by the donor. Ten other members of the transplant team tested negative for the virus.

The transplant recipient deteriorated rapidly, developing multisystem organ failure. Doctors tried known treatments for COVID-19, including remdesivir, a newly approved drug, and convalescent blood plasma from people previously infected with the disease. Eventually, she was placed on the last-resort option of ECMO, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, to no avail. Life support was withdrawn, and she died 61 days after the transplant.

Dr. Kaul called the incident “a tragic case.”

While the Michigan case marks the first confirmed incident in the U.S. of transmission through a transplant, others have been suspected. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report reviewed eight possible cases of what’s known as donor-derived infection that occurred last spring, but concluded the most likely source of transmission of the COVID-19 virus in those cases was in a community or health care setting.

Before this incident, it was not clear whether the COVID-19 virus could be transmitted through solid organ transplants, though it’s well documented with other respiratory viruses. Donor transmission of H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza has been detected almost exclusively in lung transplant recipients, Dr. Kaul noted.

While it’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through infected lungs, it remains uncertain whether other organs affected by COVID-19 – hearts, livers and kidneys, for instance – can transmit the virus, too.

“It seems for non-lung donors that it may be very difficult to transmit COVID-19, even if the donor has COVID-19,” Dr. Kaul said.

Organ donors have been tested routinely for SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic, though it’s not required by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, which oversees transplants in the U.S. But the Michigan case underscores the need for more extensive sampling before transplant, especially in areas with high rates of covid transmission, Dr. Kaul said.

When it comes to lungs, that means making sure to test samples from the donor’s lower respiratory tract, as well as from the nose and throat. Obtaining and testing such samples from donors can be difficult to carry out in a timely fashion. There’s also the risk of introducing infection into the donated lungs, Dr. Kaul said.

Because no organs other than lungs were used, the Michigan case doesn’t provide insight into testing protocols for other organs.

Overall, viral transmissions from organ donors to recipients remain rare, occurring in fewer than 1% of transplant recipients, research shows. The medical risks facing ailing patients who reject a donor organ are generally far higher, said Dr. David Klassen, chief medical officer with the United Network for Organ Sharing, the federal contractor that runs the OPTN.

“The risks of turning down transplants are catastrophic,” he said. “I don’t think patients should be afraid of the transplant process.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Doctors say a woman in Michigan contracted COVID-19 and died last fall 2 months after receiving a tainted double-lung transplant from a donor who turned out to harbor the virus that causes the disease – despite showing no signs of illness and initially testing negative.

Officials at the University of Michigan Medical School suggested it may be the first proven case of COVID-19 in the U.S. in which the virus was transmitted via an organ transplant. A surgeon who handled the donor lungs was also infected with the virus and fell ill but later recovered.

The incident appears to be isolated – the only confirmed case among nearly 40,000 transplants in 2020. But it has led to calls for more thorough testing of lung transplant donors, with samples taken from deep within the donor lungs as well as the nose and throat, said Dr. Daniel Kaul, director of Michigan Medicine’s transplant infectious disease service.

“We would absolutely not have used the lungs if we’d had a positive COVID-19 test,” said Dr. Kaul, who coauthored a report about the case in the American Journal of Transplantation.

The virus was transmitted when lungs from a woman from the Upper Midwest, who died after suffering a severe brain injury in a car accident, were transplanted into a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease at University Hospital in Ann Arbor. The nose and throat samples routinely collected from both organ donors and recipients tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid.

“All the screening that we normally do and are able to do, we did,” Dr. Kaul said.

Three days after the operation, however, the recipient spiked a fever; her blood pressure fell and her breathing became labored. Imaging showed signs of lung infection.

As her condition worsened, the patient developed septic shock and heart function problems. Doctors decided to test for SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Kaul said. Samples from her new lungs came back positive.

Suspicious about the origin of the infection, doctors returned to samples from the transplant donor. A molecular test of a swab from the donor’s nose and throat, taken 48 hours after her lungs were procured, had been negative for SARS-Cov-2. The donor’s family told doctors she had no history of recent travel or COVID-19 symptoms and no known exposure to anyone with the disease.

But doctors had kept a sample of fluid washed from deep within the donor lungs. When they tested that fluid, it was positive for the virus. Four days after the transplant, the surgeon who handled the donor lungs and performed the surgery tested positive, too. Genetic screening revealed that the transplant recipient and the surgeon had been infected by the donor. Ten other members of the transplant team tested negative for the virus.

The transplant recipient deteriorated rapidly, developing multisystem organ failure. Doctors tried known treatments for COVID-19, including remdesivir, a newly approved drug, and convalescent blood plasma from people previously infected with the disease. Eventually, she was placed on the last-resort option of ECMO, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, to no avail. Life support was withdrawn, and she died 61 days after the transplant.

Dr. Kaul called the incident “a tragic case.”

While the Michigan case marks the first confirmed incident in the U.S. of transmission through a transplant, others have been suspected. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report reviewed eight possible cases of what’s known as donor-derived infection that occurred last spring, but concluded the most likely source of transmission of the COVID-19 virus in those cases was in a community or health care setting.

Before this incident, it was not clear whether the COVID-19 virus could be transmitted through solid organ transplants, though it’s well documented with other respiratory viruses. Donor transmission of H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza has been detected almost exclusively in lung transplant recipients, Dr. Kaul noted.

While it’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through infected lungs, it remains uncertain whether other organs affected by COVID-19 – hearts, livers and kidneys, for instance – can transmit the virus, too.

“It seems for non-lung donors that it may be very difficult to transmit COVID-19, even if the donor has COVID-19,” Dr. Kaul said.

Organ donors have been tested routinely for SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic, though it’s not required by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, which oversees transplants in the U.S. But the Michigan case underscores the need for more extensive sampling before transplant, especially in areas with high rates of covid transmission, Dr. Kaul said.

When it comes to lungs, that means making sure to test samples from the donor’s lower respiratory tract, as well as from the nose and throat. Obtaining and testing such samples from donors can be difficult to carry out in a timely fashion. There’s also the risk of introducing infection into the donated lungs, Dr. Kaul said.

Because no organs other than lungs were used, the Michigan case doesn’t provide insight into testing protocols for other organs.

Overall, viral transmissions from organ donors to recipients remain rare, occurring in fewer than 1% of transplant recipients, research shows. The medical risks facing ailing patients who reject a donor organ are generally far higher, said Dr. David Klassen, chief medical officer with the United Network for Organ Sharing, the federal contractor that runs the OPTN.

“The risks of turning down transplants are catastrophic,” he said. “I don’t think patients should be afraid of the transplant process.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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

Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, walked through a multiagency attack plan for halting the spread of three COVID-19 variants earlier this week.

As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.

In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.

Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.

As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.

In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.

She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.

She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.

Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.

Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.

Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.

As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
 

Top three threats

She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.

Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.

“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.

The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.

The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
 

Outlook for March and April

Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.

“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”

CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.

“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.

“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.

Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.

Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.

“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.

In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.

Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.

She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.

“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.

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