MDedge Surgery

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many practitioners of aesthetic medicine have encountered counterfeit injectables and devices, and some have knowingly purchased such products, according to the results of two recent surveys of such providers.

“Counterfeit medical devices and injectables may be more prevalent in aesthetic medicine than most practitioners might estimate,” Jordan V. Wang, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associates wrote in Dermatologic Surgery, even though “the vast majority [believe] that they are inferior and even potentially harmful.”

In one of the online surveys, conducted among members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, 41.1% of the 616 respondents said they had encountered counterfeit injectables, more than half (56.5%) of whom were solicited to buy such products. Just over 10% had purchased counterfeit injectables, although nearly 80% did so unknowingly, the investigators said.

In the second survey, 37.4% of the 765 respondents (members of the ASDS as well as the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery) said that they had encountered counterfeit medical devices, and nearly half had been approached to purchase such devices. Of those who were approached, 4.6% had actually purchased a counterfeit, but only 6.1% did so unknowingly, Dr. Wang and associates reported.

In the medical device survey, almost a quarter (24.2%) acknowledged that they know of other providers using them, while 29.3% of those surveyed about injectables know of others who use counterfeits, they said.

Over 90% of practitioners in each survey agreed that counterfeits are worse in terms of safety, reliability, and effectiveness, but the proportions were smaller when they were asked if counterfeits were either very or extremely endangering to patient safety: 70.5% for injectables and 59.2% for devices, the investigators said.

Experience with adverse events from counterfeits in patients was reported by 39.7% of respondents to the injectables survey and by 20.1% of those in the device survey, they added.

Majorities in both surveys – 73.7% for injectables and 68.9% for devices – also said that they were either not familiar or only somewhat familiar with the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations on counterfeits. “This is especially problematic considering the potentially severe adverse events and steep punishments,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

The authors disclosed that they had no significant interest with commercial supporters. Dr. Wang is now a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang JV et al. Dermatol. Surg. 2020 Oct;46(10):1323-6.

Many practitioners of aesthetic medicine have encountered counterfeit injectables and devices, and some have knowingly purchased such products, according to the results of two recent surveys of such providers.

“Counterfeit medical devices and injectables may be more prevalent in aesthetic medicine than most practitioners might estimate,” Jordan V. Wang, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associates wrote in Dermatologic Surgery, even though “the vast majority [believe] that they are inferior and even potentially harmful.”

In one of the online surveys, conducted among members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, 41.1% of the 616 respondents said they had encountered counterfeit injectables, more than half (56.5%) of whom were solicited to buy such products. Just over 10% had purchased counterfeit injectables, although nearly 80% did so unknowingly, the investigators said.

In the second survey, 37.4% of the 765 respondents (members of the ASDS as well as the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery) said that they had encountered counterfeit medical devices, and nearly half had been approached to purchase such devices. Of those who were approached, 4.6% had actually purchased a counterfeit, but only 6.1% did so unknowingly, Dr. Wang and associates reported.

In the medical device survey, almost a quarter (24.2%) acknowledged that they know of other providers using them, while 29.3% of those surveyed about injectables know of others who use counterfeits, they said.

Over 90% of practitioners in each survey agreed that counterfeits are worse in terms of safety, reliability, and effectiveness, but the proportions were smaller when they were asked if counterfeits were either very or extremely endangering to patient safety: 70.5% for injectables and 59.2% for devices, the investigators said.

Experience with adverse events from counterfeits in patients was reported by 39.7% of respondents to the injectables survey and by 20.1% of those in the device survey, they added.

Majorities in both surveys – 73.7% for injectables and 68.9% for devices – also said that they were either not familiar or only somewhat familiar with the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations on counterfeits. “This is especially problematic considering the potentially severe adverse events and steep punishments,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

The authors disclosed that they had no significant interest with commercial supporters. Dr. Wang is now a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang JV et al. Dermatol. Surg. 2020 Oct;46(10):1323-6.

Many practitioners of aesthetic medicine have encountered counterfeit injectables and devices, and some have knowingly purchased such products, according to the results of two recent surveys of such providers.

“Counterfeit medical devices and injectables may be more prevalent in aesthetic medicine than most practitioners might estimate,” Jordan V. Wang, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associates wrote in Dermatologic Surgery, even though “the vast majority [believe] that they are inferior and even potentially harmful.”

In one of the online surveys, conducted among members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, 41.1% of the 616 respondents said they had encountered counterfeit injectables, more than half (56.5%) of whom were solicited to buy such products. Just over 10% had purchased counterfeit injectables, although nearly 80% did so unknowingly, the investigators said.

In the second survey, 37.4% of the 765 respondents (members of the ASDS as well as the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery) said that they had encountered counterfeit medical devices, and nearly half had been approached to purchase such devices. Of those who were approached, 4.6% had actually purchased a counterfeit, but only 6.1% did so unknowingly, Dr. Wang and associates reported.

In the medical device survey, almost a quarter (24.2%) acknowledged that they know of other providers using them, while 29.3% of those surveyed about injectables know of others who use counterfeits, they said.

Over 90% of practitioners in each survey agreed that counterfeits are worse in terms of safety, reliability, and effectiveness, but the proportions were smaller when they were asked if counterfeits were either very or extremely endangering to patient safety: 70.5% for injectables and 59.2% for devices, the investigators said.

Experience with adverse events from counterfeits in patients was reported by 39.7% of respondents to the injectables survey and by 20.1% of those in the device survey, they added.

Majorities in both surveys – 73.7% for injectables and 68.9% for devices – also said that they were either not familiar or only somewhat familiar with the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations on counterfeits. “This is especially problematic considering the potentially severe adverse events and steep punishments,” Dr. Wang and associates wrote.

The authors disclosed that they had no significant interest with commercial supporters. Dr. Wang is now a fellow at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wang JV et al. Dermatol. Surg. 2020 Oct;46(10):1323-6.

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.