Low-dose chest CT for lung cancer screening provides the opportunity to simultaneously screen patients for osteoporosis, detecting notably higher rates of osteoporosis in men than the traditional tool of DXA, research published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research shows.

“Our large-scale, multicenter study of bone density measured from routine low-dose CT scans demonstrated the great potential of using low-dose CT for the opportunistic screening of osteoporosis as an alternative to standard DXA scans,” said senior author Wei Tian, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Peking University, in a press statement from the journal.

“Our study revealed the unexpectedly high prevalence of osteoporosis in men, which may impact on the management strategy of men in the future,” Dr. Tian added.

Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Herning Hospital, Denmark, who has conducted similar research using cardiac CT scans, said the findings add important new insights into the issue of opportunistic screening.

“The results are highly interesting, as they show that low-dose CT-based opportunistic screening could identify a substantial number of patients with low lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) with the future potential to diagnose osteoporosis and initiate relevant treatment before a fracture occurs,” she told this news organization.

Perry J. Pickhardt, MD, chief of gastrointestinal imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, agrees. He said in an interview that CT scans of the chest and abdomen, commonly performed for a variety of clinical indications and widespread in most developed countries, can in fact be essential for the detection of a multitude of other concerns – yet are underused for those other purposes.

Use of CT in this way “would likely be very cost effective and clinically efficacious,” he said, adding: “We are seeing greatly increased interest in leveraging this extra information that is contained within every CT scan.” And, “Importantly, artificial intelligence advances now allow for automated approaches, which should allow for expanded use.”
 

Lung cancer CT scans shed light on osteoporosis prevalence

In the study, led by Xiaoguang Cheng, MD, PhD, of the department of radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, China, researchers examined lung cancer CT screening data from the prospective China Biobank Project to determine the prevalence of osteoporosis in China.

This included the thoracic low-dose CT scans of 69,095 adults, including 40,733 men and 28,362 women, taken between 2018 and 2019.

To screen for osteoporosis, they used quantitative CT software to evaluate lumbar spine (L1-L2) trabecular volume BMD (vBMD) and diagnostic criteria from the American College of Radiology. Using the vBMD measures from the CT imaging, they found the prevalence of osteoporosis among those over 50 years of age in the Chinese population to be 29% for women (49 million) and 13.5% for men (22.8 million).

Interestingly, the osteoporosis prevalence rate among women was comparable to estimates in the population derived from DXA (29.1%); however, the rate in men was twice that estimated from DXA scans (6.5%).

Decreases in trabecular vBMD with age were observed in both genders. However, declines were steeper among women, who had higher peak trabecular vBMD (185.4 mg/cm³), compared with men (176.6 mg/cm³) at age 30-34 years, but significantly lower measures (62.4 mg/cm³) than men (92.1 mg/cm³) at age 80 years.

The prevalence of osteoporosis in women increased from 2.8% at age 50-54 years to 79.8% at age 85 or older, while in men, the prevalence was 3.2% at age 50-54 years and 44.1% at age 85 or older.

“This is the first study to establish Chinese reference data for vBMD using opportunistic screening from low-dose chest CT in a large population cohort,” the authors write.

“The opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using low-dose CT is clinically feasible and requires no additional exposure to ionizing radiation.”

In addition, no additional equipment or patient time was required, suggesting that “this approach has potential for opportunistic screening for osteoporosis.”

They note, however, that further cohort studies are needed to assess clinical utility of this method.
 

CT ‘likely a more accurate measure’ of volumetric BMD

Dr. Pickhardt said the differences in osteoporosis prevalence observed between DXA and CT-derived measures in men likely reflect the greater accuracy of CT.

“DXA is a planar technique with a number of drawbacks,” he said in an interview. “CT provides a more direct volumetric measure and is likely a more accurate method for BMD assessment.”

He speculated that the greater differences between DXA versus CT seen in men than women “may relate to sex differences in cortical bone of vertebral bodies, which cannot be separated from the underlying trabecular bone with DXA (whereas CT directly measures the inner trabecular bone).” 

The authors note that, although areal BMD (aBMD) derived from DXA is required for osteoporosis diagnosis according to World Health Organization criteria, “trabecular vBMD derived from CT can be also used for diagnosis based on thresholds published by the American College of Radiology of 120 mg/cm³ and 80 mg/cm³ to define osteopenia and osteoporosis, respectively, thresholds that were subsequently confirmed for the Chinese population.”

Furthermore, vBMD has been shown in some studies to be more strongly related to fracture risk, compared with DXA aBMD measures.

Importantly, in another recent study involving 9,223 adults, Dr. Pickhardt and colleagues reported that bone and muscle biomarkers derived from CT were comparable to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool score for the presymptomatic prediction of future osteoporotic fractures.

Dr. Pickhardt is an advisor to Bracco Imaging and Zebra Medical Vision. Dr. Therkildsen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low-dose chest CT for lung cancer screening provides the opportunity to simultaneously screen patients for osteoporosis, detecting notably higher rates of osteoporosis in men than the traditional tool of DXA, research published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research shows.

“Our large-scale, multicenter study of bone density measured from routine low-dose CT scans demonstrated the great potential of using low-dose CT for the opportunistic screening of osteoporosis as an alternative to standard DXA scans,” said senior author Wei Tian, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Peking University, in a press statement from the journal.

“Our study revealed the unexpectedly high prevalence of osteoporosis in men, which may impact on the management strategy of men in the future,” Dr. Tian added.

Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Herning Hospital, Denmark, who has conducted similar research using cardiac CT scans, said the findings add important new insights into the issue of opportunistic screening.

“The results are highly interesting, as they show that low-dose CT-based opportunistic screening could identify a substantial number of patients with low lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) with the future potential to diagnose osteoporosis and initiate relevant treatment before a fracture occurs,” she told this news organization.

Perry J. Pickhardt, MD, chief of gastrointestinal imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, agrees. He said in an interview that CT scans of the chest and abdomen, commonly performed for a variety of clinical indications and widespread in most developed countries, can in fact be essential for the detection of a multitude of other concerns – yet are underused for those other purposes.

Use of CT in this way “would likely be very cost effective and clinically efficacious,” he said, adding: “We are seeing greatly increased interest in leveraging this extra information that is contained within every CT scan.” And, “Importantly, artificial intelligence advances now allow for automated approaches, which should allow for expanded use.”
 

Lung cancer CT scans shed light on osteoporosis prevalence

In the study, led by Xiaoguang Cheng, MD, PhD, of the department of radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, China, researchers examined lung cancer CT screening data from the prospective China Biobank Project to determine the prevalence of osteoporosis in China.

This included the thoracic low-dose CT scans of 69,095 adults, including 40,733 men and 28,362 women, taken between 2018 and 2019.

To screen for osteoporosis, they used quantitative CT software to evaluate lumbar spine (L1-L2) trabecular volume BMD (vBMD) and diagnostic criteria from the American College of Radiology. Using the vBMD measures from the CT imaging, they found the prevalence of osteoporosis among those over 50 years of age in the Chinese population to be 29% for women (49 million) and 13.5% for men (22.8 million).

Interestingly, the osteoporosis prevalence rate among women was comparable to estimates in the population derived from DXA (29.1%); however, the rate in men was twice that estimated from DXA scans (6.5%).

Decreases in trabecular vBMD with age were observed in both genders. However, declines were steeper among women, who had higher peak trabecular vBMD (185.4 mg/cm³), compared with men (176.6 mg/cm³) at age 30-34 years, but significantly lower measures (62.4 mg/cm³) than men (92.1 mg/cm³) at age 80 years.

The prevalence of osteoporosis in women increased from 2.8% at age 50-54 years to 79.8% at age 85 or older, while in men, the prevalence was 3.2% at age 50-54 years and 44.1% at age 85 or older.

“This is the first study to establish Chinese reference data for vBMD using opportunistic screening from low-dose chest CT in a large population cohort,” the authors write.

“The opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using low-dose CT is clinically feasible and requires no additional exposure to ionizing radiation.”

In addition, no additional equipment or patient time was required, suggesting that “this approach has potential for opportunistic screening for osteoporosis.”

They note, however, that further cohort studies are needed to assess clinical utility of this method.
 

CT ‘likely a more accurate measure’ of volumetric BMD

Dr. Pickhardt said the differences in osteoporosis prevalence observed between DXA and CT-derived measures in men likely reflect the greater accuracy of CT.

“DXA is a planar technique with a number of drawbacks,” he said in an interview. “CT provides a more direct volumetric measure and is likely a more accurate method for BMD assessment.”

He speculated that the greater differences between DXA versus CT seen in men than women “may relate to sex differences in cortical bone of vertebral bodies, which cannot be separated from the underlying trabecular bone with DXA (whereas CT directly measures the inner trabecular bone).” 

The authors note that, although areal BMD (aBMD) derived from DXA is required for osteoporosis diagnosis according to World Health Organization criteria, “trabecular vBMD derived from CT can be also used for diagnosis based on thresholds published by the American College of Radiology of 120 mg/cm³ and 80 mg/cm³ to define osteopenia and osteoporosis, respectively, thresholds that were subsequently confirmed for the Chinese population.”

Furthermore, vBMD has been shown in some studies to be more strongly related to fracture risk, compared with DXA aBMD measures.

Importantly, in another recent study involving 9,223 adults, Dr. Pickhardt and colleagues reported that bone and muscle biomarkers derived from CT were comparable to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool score for the presymptomatic prediction of future osteoporotic fractures.

Dr. Pickhardt is an advisor to Bracco Imaging and Zebra Medical Vision. Dr. Therkildsen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low-dose chest CT for lung cancer screening provides the opportunity to simultaneously screen patients for osteoporosis, detecting notably higher rates of osteoporosis in men than the traditional tool of DXA, research published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research shows.

“Our large-scale, multicenter study of bone density measured from routine low-dose CT scans demonstrated the great potential of using low-dose CT for the opportunistic screening of osteoporosis as an alternative to standard DXA scans,” said senior author Wei Tian, MD, of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Peking University, in a press statement from the journal.

“Our study revealed the unexpectedly high prevalence of osteoporosis in men, which may impact on the management strategy of men in the future,” Dr. Tian added.

Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Herning Hospital, Denmark, who has conducted similar research using cardiac CT scans, said the findings add important new insights into the issue of opportunistic screening.

“The results are highly interesting, as they show that low-dose CT-based opportunistic screening could identify a substantial number of patients with low lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) with the future potential to diagnose osteoporosis and initiate relevant treatment before a fracture occurs,” she told this news organization.

Perry J. Pickhardt, MD, chief of gastrointestinal imaging at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, agrees. He said in an interview that CT scans of the chest and abdomen, commonly performed for a variety of clinical indications and widespread in most developed countries, can in fact be essential for the detection of a multitude of other concerns – yet are underused for those other purposes.

Use of CT in this way “would likely be very cost effective and clinically efficacious,” he said, adding: “We are seeing greatly increased interest in leveraging this extra information that is contained within every CT scan.” And, “Importantly, artificial intelligence advances now allow for automated approaches, which should allow for expanded use.”
 

Lung cancer CT scans shed light on osteoporosis prevalence

In the study, led by Xiaoguang Cheng, MD, PhD, of the department of radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, China, researchers examined lung cancer CT screening data from the prospective China Biobank Project to determine the prevalence of osteoporosis in China.

This included the thoracic low-dose CT scans of 69,095 adults, including 40,733 men and 28,362 women, taken between 2018 and 2019.

To screen for osteoporosis, they used quantitative CT software to evaluate lumbar spine (L1-L2) trabecular volume BMD (vBMD) and diagnostic criteria from the American College of Radiology. Using the vBMD measures from the CT imaging, they found the prevalence of osteoporosis among those over 50 years of age in the Chinese population to be 29% for women (49 million) and 13.5% for men (22.8 million).

Interestingly, the osteoporosis prevalence rate among women was comparable to estimates in the population derived from DXA (29.1%); however, the rate in men was twice that estimated from DXA scans (6.5%).

Decreases in trabecular vBMD with age were observed in both genders. However, declines were steeper among women, who had higher peak trabecular vBMD (185.4 mg/cm³), compared with men (176.6 mg/cm³) at age 30-34 years, but significantly lower measures (62.4 mg/cm³) than men (92.1 mg/cm³) at age 80 years.

The prevalence of osteoporosis in women increased from 2.8% at age 50-54 years to 79.8% at age 85 or older, while in men, the prevalence was 3.2% at age 50-54 years and 44.1% at age 85 or older.

“This is the first study to establish Chinese reference data for vBMD using opportunistic screening from low-dose chest CT in a large population cohort,” the authors write.

“The opportunistic screening of osteoporosis using low-dose CT is clinically feasible and requires no additional exposure to ionizing radiation.”

In addition, no additional equipment or patient time was required, suggesting that “this approach has potential for opportunistic screening for osteoporosis.”

They note, however, that further cohort studies are needed to assess clinical utility of this method.
 

CT ‘likely a more accurate measure’ of volumetric BMD

Dr. Pickhardt said the differences in osteoporosis prevalence observed between DXA and CT-derived measures in men likely reflect the greater accuracy of CT.

“DXA is a planar technique with a number of drawbacks,” he said in an interview. “CT provides a more direct volumetric measure and is likely a more accurate method for BMD assessment.”

He speculated that the greater differences between DXA versus CT seen in men than women “may relate to sex differences in cortical bone of vertebral bodies, which cannot be separated from the underlying trabecular bone with DXA (whereas CT directly measures the inner trabecular bone).” 

The authors note that, although areal BMD (aBMD) derived from DXA is required for osteoporosis diagnosis according to World Health Organization criteria, “trabecular vBMD derived from CT can be also used for diagnosis based on thresholds published by the American College of Radiology of 120 mg/cm³ and 80 mg/cm³ to define osteopenia and osteoporosis, respectively, thresholds that were subsequently confirmed for the Chinese population.”

Furthermore, vBMD has been shown in some studies to be more strongly related to fracture risk, compared with DXA aBMD measures.

Importantly, in another recent study involving 9,223 adults, Dr. Pickhardt and colleagues reported that bone and muscle biomarkers derived from CT were comparable to the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool score for the presymptomatic prediction of future osteoporotic fractures.

Dr. Pickhardt is an advisor to Bracco Imaging and Zebra Medical Vision. Dr. Therkildsen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A radioactive diagnostic agent has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with prostate cancer, but only for those treated at two institutions in California.

The product, Gallium 68 PSMA-11 (Ga 68 PSMA-11), is the first agent approved specifically for use in positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions in men with prostate cancer, the FDA noted.

This imaging approach can “detect whether or not the cancer has spread to other parts of the body,” commented Alex Gorovets, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Specialty Medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Ga 68 PSMA-11 is indicated for use in patients with suspected prostate cancer metastasis whose conditions are potentially curable by surgery or radiotherapy and in patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence, as determined on the basis of elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
 

Institutional use only

Ga 68 PSMA-11 has been approved for institutional use at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, San Francisco under an academic new drug application (NDA).

The FDA approval was based partly on a clinical trial conducted by the UCSF and UCLA research teams on the effectiveness of PSMA-PET.

“It is rare for academic institutions to obtain FDA approval of a drug, and this unique collaboration has led to what is one of the first coapprovals of a drug at two institutions,” said Thomas Hope, MD, an associate professor at UCSF. “We hope that this first step will lead to a more widespread availability of this imaging test to men with prostate cancer throughout the country.”

Ga 68 PSMA-11 was developed outside the United States at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

A commercial NDA from Telix Pharmaceuticals for TL591-CDx, a radiopharmaceutical cold kit for the preparation of Ga 68 PSMA-11 injection, is under consideration by the FDA.

The agency noted that two other PET diagnostic agents – fluciclovine F18 and choline C11 – are approved for prostate cancer imaging. However, they are only approved for use in patients with suspected cancer recurrence.
 

Trial results with PSMA-PET/CT

“PSMA-PET/CT is a novel molecular and functional imaging modality specific for prostate cancer cells that has good sensitivity and outstanding specificity in detecting metastasis,” commented T. Martin Ma, MD, PhD, of UCLA.

Dr. Ma presented a U.S. study on the technique at the recent annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. That study showed that PSMA-PET/CT led to nodal upstaging in 19.7% of patients and metastasis upstaging in 9.4%.

He said these results were similar to those from the Australian proPSMA trial, which was published in The Lancet earlier this year. That trial found PSMA-PET/CT to be superior to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer.

“These findings carry significant clinical implications and can affect treatment decision-making,” Dr. Ma commented.

“PSMA-PET has been a real game changer in high-risk prostate cancer and has implications in the various stages of prostate cancer management from diagnosis and staging to theranostics,” said Renu Eapen, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, who was not involved in either study.

“PSMA-PET/CT has challenged conventional imaging in staging before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy,” Dr. Eapen added.

The accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was 27% higher than that of conventional imaging in the proPSMA trial, she noted in an interview last month. This superior accuracy can ultimately affect management. The imaging has additional benefits of lower radiation dose as well as reproducibility with high reporter agreement, potentially making it a “one-stop-shop” scan.
 

Trial results with Ga 68 PSMA-11

The safety and efficacy of Ga 68 PSMA-11 were evaluated in two prospective clinical trials with a total of 960 men with prostate cancer, each of whom received one injection of the product.

The first trial involved 325 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent PET/CT or PET/MRI scans performed with Ga 68 PSMA-11.

“These patients were candidates for surgical removal of the prostate gland and pelvic lymph nodes and were considered at higher risk for metastasis. Among the patients who proceeded to surgery, those with positive readings in the pelvic lymph nodes on Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET had a clinically important rate of metastatic cancer confirmed by surgical pathology,” the FDA noted.

“The availability of this information prior to treatment is expected to have important implications for patient care,” the FDA commented. “For example, it may spare certain patients from undergoing unnecessary surgery.”

The second trial enrolled 635 patients with rising serum PSA levels after initial prostate surgery or radiotherapy. All patients received a single Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET/CT scan or PET/MRI scan.

About three-quarters of patients (74%) had at least one positive lesion detected by Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET in at least one region – bone, prostate bed, pelvic lymph node, or extra-pelvic soft tissue.

“In patients with positive Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET readings who had correlative tissue pathology from biopsies, results from baseline or follow-up imaging by conventional methods, and serial PSA levels available for comparison, local recurrence or metastasis of prostate cancer was confirmed in an estimated 91% of cases,” the FDA noted.

“Thus, the second trial demonstrated that Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET can detect sites of disease in patients with biochemical evidence of recurrent prostate cancer, thereby providing important information that may impact the approach to therapy,” the agency added.

The FDA also noted that no serious adverse reactions were attributed to Ga 68 PSMA-11. The most common adverse reactions were nausea, diarrhea, and dizziness.

The FDA said there is a risk for misdiagnosis because Ga 68 PSMA-11 binding may occur in other types of cancer, and certain nonmalignant processes may lead to errors in interpreting images. In addition, there are radiation risks because Ga 68 PSMA-11 contributes to a patient’s overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure, which is associated with an increased risk for cancer.

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

A radioactive diagnostic agent has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with prostate cancer, but only for those treated at two institutions in California.

The product, Gallium 68 PSMA-11 (Ga 68 PSMA-11), is the first agent approved specifically for use in positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions in men with prostate cancer, the FDA noted.

This imaging approach can “detect whether or not the cancer has spread to other parts of the body,” commented Alex Gorovets, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Specialty Medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Ga 68 PSMA-11 is indicated for use in patients with suspected prostate cancer metastasis whose conditions are potentially curable by surgery or radiotherapy and in patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence, as determined on the basis of elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
 

Institutional use only

Ga 68 PSMA-11 has been approved for institutional use at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, San Francisco under an academic new drug application (NDA).

The FDA approval was based partly on a clinical trial conducted by the UCSF and UCLA research teams on the effectiveness of PSMA-PET.

“It is rare for academic institutions to obtain FDA approval of a drug, and this unique collaboration has led to what is one of the first coapprovals of a drug at two institutions,” said Thomas Hope, MD, an associate professor at UCSF. “We hope that this first step will lead to a more widespread availability of this imaging test to men with prostate cancer throughout the country.”

Ga 68 PSMA-11 was developed outside the United States at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

A commercial NDA from Telix Pharmaceuticals for TL591-CDx, a radiopharmaceutical cold kit for the preparation of Ga 68 PSMA-11 injection, is under consideration by the FDA.

The agency noted that two other PET diagnostic agents – fluciclovine F18 and choline C11 – are approved for prostate cancer imaging. However, they are only approved for use in patients with suspected cancer recurrence.
 

Trial results with PSMA-PET/CT

“PSMA-PET/CT is a novel molecular and functional imaging modality specific for prostate cancer cells that has good sensitivity and outstanding specificity in detecting metastasis,” commented T. Martin Ma, MD, PhD, of UCLA.

Dr. Ma presented a U.S. study on the technique at the recent annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. That study showed that PSMA-PET/CT led to nodal upstaging in 19.7% of patients and metastasis upstaging in 9.4%.

He said these results were similar to those from the Australian proPSMA trial, which was published in The Lancet earlier this year. That trial found PSMA-PET/CT to be superior to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer.

“These findings carry significant clinical implications and can affect treatment decision-making,” Dr. Ma commented.

“PSMA-PET has been a real game changer in high-risk prostate cancer and has implications in the various stages of prostate cancer management from diagnosis and staging to theranostics,” said Renu Eapen, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, who was not involved in either study.

“PSMA-PET/CT has challenged conventional imaging in staging before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy,” Dr. Eapen added.

The accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was 27% higher than that of conventional imaging in the proPSMA trial, she noted in an interview last month. This superior accuracy can ultimately affect management. The imaging has additional benefits of lower radiation dose as well as reproducibility with high reporter agreement, potentially making it a “one-stop-shop” scan.
 

Trial results with Ga 68 PSMA-11

The safety and efficacy of Ga 68 PSMA-11 were evaluated in two prospective clinical trials with a total of 960 men with prostate cancer, each of whom received one injection of the product.

The first trial involved 325 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent PET/CT or PET/MRI scans performed with Ga 68 PSMA-11.

“These patients were candidates for surgical removal of the prostate gland and pelvic lymph nodes and were considered at higher risk for metastasis. Among the patients who proceeded to surgery, those with positive readings in the pelvic lymph nodes on Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET had a clinically important rate of metastatic cancer confirmed by surgical pathology,” the FDA noted.

“The availability of this information prior to treatment is expected to have important implications for patient care,” the FDA commented. “For example, it may spare certain patients from undergoing unnecessary surgery.”

The second trial enrolled 635 patients with rising serum PSA levels after initial prostate surgery or radiotherapy. All patients received a single Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET/CT scan or PET/MRI scan.

About three-quarters of patients (74%) had at least one positive lesion detected by Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET in at least one region – bone, prostate bed, pelvic lymph node, or extra-pelvic soft tissue.

“In patients with positive Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET readings who had correlative tissue pathology from biopsies, results from baseline or follow-up imaging by conventional methods, and serial PSA levels available for comparison, local recurrence or metastasis of prostate cancer was confirmed in an estimated 91% of cases,” the FDA noted.

“Thus, the second trial demonstrated that Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET can detect sites of disease in patients with biochemical evidence of recurrent prostate cancer, thereby providing important information that may impact the approach to therapy,” the agency added.

The FDA also noted that no serious adverse reactions were attributed to Ga 68 PSMA-11. The most common adverse reactions were nausea, diarrhea, and dizziness.

The FDA said there is a risk for misdiagnosis because Ga 68 PSMA-11 binding may occur in other types of cancer, and certain nonmalignant processes may lead to errors in interpreting images. In addition, there are radiation risks because Ga 68 PSMA-11 contributes to a patient’s overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure, which is associated with an increased risk for cancer.

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

A radioactive diagnostic agent has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with prostate cancer, but only for those treated at two institutions in California.

The product, Gallium 68 PSMA-11 (Ga 68 PSMA-11), is the first agent approved specifically for use in positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions in men with prostate cancer, the FDA noted.

This imaging approach can “detect whether or not the cancer has spread to other parts of the body,” commented Alex Gorovets, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Specialty Medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Ga 68 PSMA-11 is indicated for use in patients with suspected prostate cancer metastasis whose conditions are potentially curable by surgery or radiotherapy and in patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence, as determined on the basis of elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
 

Institutional use only

Ga 68 PSMA-11 has been approved for institutional use at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, San Francisco under an academic new drug application (NDA).

The FDA approval was based partly on a clinical trial conducted by the UCSF and UCLA research teams on the effectiveness of PSMA-PET.

“It is rare for academic institutions to obtain FDA approval of a drug, and this unique collaboration has led to what is one of the first coapprovals of a drug at two institutions,” said Thomas Hope, MD, an associate professor at UCSF. “We hope that this first step will lead to a more widespread availability of this imaging test to men with prostate cancer throughout the country.”

Ga 68 PSMA-11 was developed outside the United States at the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

A commercial NDA from Telix Pharmaceuticals for TL591-CDx, a radiopharmaceutical cold kit for the preparation of Ga 68 PSMA-11 injection, is under consideration by the FDA.

The agency noted that two other PET diagnostic agents – fluciclovine F18 and choline C11 – are approved for prostate cancer imaging. However, they are only approved for use in patients with suspected cancer recurrence.
 

Trial results with PSMA-PET/CT

“PSMA-PET/CT is a novel molecular and functional imaging modality specific for prostate cancer cells that has good sensitivity and outstanding specificity in detecting metastasis,” commented T. Martin Ma, MD, PhD, of UCLA.

Dr. Ma presented a U.S. study on the technique at the recent annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. That study showed that PSMA-PET/CT led to nodal upstaging in 19.7% of patients and metastasis upstaging in 9.4%.

He said these results were similar to those from the Australian proPSMA trial, which was published in The Lancet earlier this year. That trial found PSMA-PET/CT to be superior to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer.

“These findings carry significant clinical implications and can affect treatment decision-making,” Dr. Ma commented.

“PSMA-PET has been a real game changer in high-risk prostate cancer and has implications in the various stages of prostate cancer management from diagnosis and staging to theranostics,” said Renu Eapen, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, who was not involved in either study.

“PSMA-PET/CT has challenged conventional imaging in staging before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy,” Dr. Eapen added.

The accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was 27% higher than that of conventional imaging in the proPSMA trial, she noted in an interview last month. This superior accuracy can ultimately affect management. The imaging has additional benefits of lower radiation dose as well as reproducibility with high reporter agreement, potentially making it a “one-stop-shop” scan.
 

Trial results with Ga 68 PSMA-11

The safety and efficacy of Ga 68 PSMA-11 were evaluated in two prospective clinical trials with a total of 960 men with prostate cancer, each of whom received one injection of the product.

The first trial involved 325 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent PET/CT or PET/MRI scans performed with Ga 68 PSMA-11.

“These patients were candidates for surgical removal of the prostate gland and pelvic lymph nodes and were considered at higher risk for metastasis. Among the patients who proceeded to surgery, those with positive readings in the pelvic lymph nodes on Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET had a clinically important rate of metastatic cancer confirmed by surgical pathology,” the FDA noted.

“The availability of this information prior to treatment is expected to have important implications for patient care,” the FDA commented. “For example, it may spare certain patients from undergoing unnecessary surgery.”

The second trial enrolled 635 patients with rising serum PSA levels after initial prostate surgery or radiotherapy. All patients received a single Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET/CT scan or PET/MRI scan.

About three-quarters of patients (74%) had at least one positive lesion detected by Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET in at least one region – bone, prostate bed, pelvic lymph node, or extra-pelvic soft tissue.

“In patients with positive Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET readings who had correlative tissue pathology from biopsies, results from baseline or follow-up imaging by conventional methods, and serial PSA levels available for comparison, local recurrence or metastasis of prostate cancer was confirmed in an estimated 91% of cases,” the FDA noted.

“Thus, the second trial demonstrated that Ga 68 PSMA-11 PET can detect sites of disease in patients with biochemical evidence of recurrent prostate cancer, thereby providing important information that may impact the approach to therapy,” the agency added.

The FDA also noted that no serious adverse reactions were attributed to Ga 68 PSMA-11. The most common adverse reactions were nausea, diarrhea, and dizziness.

The FDA said there is a risk for misdiagnosis because Ga 68 PSMA-11 binding may occur in other types of cancer, and certain nonmalignant processes may lead to errors in interpreting images. In addition, there are radiation risks because Ga 68 PSMA-11 contributes to a patient’s overall long-term cumulative radiation exposure, which is associated with an increased risk for cancer.

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

While the concept of home-based care and remote monitoring of patients may not be a new concept, the importance of this option for managing patients has taken on great importance during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

We are currently living and working in unprecedented times and the impact of the pandemic is quite evident, and it plays an important part in every health care worker’s daily life. The high volumes of patients presenting to emergency rooms and urgent care/walk-in clinics and seeking posthospitalization visits with their physicians is stressing the health care environment. In such difficult times, the hospital-at-home model of care provides a valuable and viable option to provide appropriate care to those patients who may require close monitoring of their health without being hospitalized and using valuable inpatient resources that could then be used for the higher-acuity patients. As a physician who lives this every day and as a practicing internist and a part-time administrator, I welcome the hospital-at-home approach that complements the care provided in the emergency room, inpatient and ambulatory practice settings. I believe this type of approach to patient care would benefit those patients who, while being acutely ill, may not require the 24/7 intensive care that more critically ill individuals may need. As long as the patients are provided with appropriate telemonitoring devices such as a blood pressure cuff, pulse oximeter, and thermometer, and have access to video telemonitoring, the appropriately selected patients would benefit from this method of care provision for their acute illness.
 

Mental health benefits

I see several benefits for patients who can be triaged/assigned to this telemonitoring model of care. A patient would probably be happier being at home because they could sleep in their own bed and eat their own food and be able to walk around their house or even venture outdoors to enjoy the fresh air and nature. Being able to do these things will contribute positively to their emotional and psychological well-being.

For some elderly individuals, having access to the familiarity of their surroundings would mean these patients would have fewer incidences of hospital-associated delirium or falls. Additionally, they would be able to enjoy the company of their family members, which, during this COVID pandemic, is not possible in many hospitals. This would reduce emotional tensions for the patients and their families and the risk of transmission of infections to the patients and their visitors in the hospitals.
 

Freeing up resources

More importantly, this model would help physicians and hospitals provide the much needed care to the appropriate patients in the appropriate settings, thereby leading to decreased use of emergency rooms, health care workers, and personal protective equipment – all of which are currently in high demand.

Having a dedicated team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other health care workers available to monitor these home-based patients on a daily or more frequent basis, depending on their health status, would result in these patients receiving equivalent care to what they would have received in a hospital.

Another positive outcome of using this home-based care model in the pandemic is that it would free up hospital beds for non–COVID-19 patients who might need hospitalization for management of their acute illnesses or exacerbation of chronic health conditions.
 

Possible limitations

This model of care has some limitations, including that it is not geared toward high volumes in my opinion and will not work in every home. Patients need to have Internet capabilities, phone services, and other features in their homes that make it possible for them to access this type of care. Additionally, patients may not be able to get their insurance companies to pay for these services. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently authorized patients to be transferred from EDs or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home, for how long will reimbursements for this kind of care continue? If insurance will not pay for this monitoring at home, then will physician practices and hospital based practices provide this non reimbursed service?

Also, patients and their families may not be accepting of this model of care because they may feel it is inferior to inpatient hospitalization.

Despite these limitations, as long as Medicare and other health insurance programs provide reimbursement for such hospital-at-home services, I foresee this concept being highly used and benefiting health care entities in the United States.
 

Dr. Deep is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Contact him at [email protected].

While the concept of home-based care and remote monitoring of patients may not be a new concept, the importance of this option for managing patients has taken on great importance during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

We are currently living and working in unprecedented times and the impact of the pandemic is quite evident, and it plays an important part in every health care worker’s daily life. The high volumes of patients presenting to emergency rooms and urgent care/walk-in clinics and seeking posthospitalization visits with their physicians is stressing the health care environment. In such difficult times, the hospital-at-home model of care provides a valuable and viable option to provide appropriate care to those patients who may require close monitoring of their health without being hospitalized and using valuable inpatient resources that could then be used for the higher-acuity patients. As a physician who lives this every day and as a practicing internist and a part-time administrator, I welcome the hospital-at-home approach that complements the care provided in the emergency room, inpatient and ambulatory practice settings. I believe this type of approach to patient care would benefit those patients who, while being acutely ill, may not require the 24/7 intensive care that more critically ill individuals may need. As long as the patients are provided with appropriate telemonitoring devices such as a blood pressure cuff, pulse oximeter, and thermometer, and have access to video telemonitoring, the appropriately selected patients would benefit from this method of care provision for their acute illness.
 

Mental health benefits

I see several benefits for patients who can be triaged/assigned to this telemonitoring model of care. A patient would probably be happier being at home because they could sleep in their own bed and eat their own food and be able to walk around their house or even venture outdoors to enjoy the fresh air and nature. Being able to do these things will contribute positively to their emotional and psychological well-being.

For some elderly individuals, having access to the familiarity of their surroundings would mean these patients would have fewer incidences of hospital-associated delirium or falls. Additionally, they would be able to enjoy the company of their family members, which, during this COVID pandemic, is not possible in many hospitals. This would reduce emotional tensions for the patients and their families and the risk of transmission of infections to the patients and their visitors in the hospitals.
 

Freeing up resources

More importantly, this model would help physicians and hospitals provide the much needed care to the appropriate patients in the appropriate settings, thereby leading to decreased use of emergency rooms, health care workers, and personal protective equipment – all of which are currently in high demand.

Having a dedicated team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other health care workers available to monitor these home-based patients on a daily or more frequent basis, depending on their health status, would result in these patients receiving equivalent care to what they would have received in a hospital.

Another positive outcome of using this home-based care model in the pandemic is that it would free up hospital beds for non–COVID-19 patients who might need hospitalization for management of their acute illnesses or exacerbation of chronic health conditions.
 

Possible limitations

This model of care has some limitations, including that it is not geared toward high volumes in my opinion and will not work in every home. Patients need to have Internet capabilities, phone services, and other features in their homes that make it possible for them to access this type of care. Additionally, patients may not be able to get their insurance companies to pay for these services. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently authorized patients to be transferred from EDs or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home, for how long will reimbursements for this kind of care continue? If insurance will not pay for this monitoring at home, then will physician practices and hospital based practices provide this non reimbursed service?

Also, patients and their families may not be accepting of this model of care because they may feel it is inferior to inpatient hospitalization.

Despite these limitations, as long as Medicare and other health insurance programs provide reimbursement for such hospital-at-home services, I foresee this concept being highly used and benefiting health care entities in the United States.
 

Dr. Deep is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Contact him at [email protected].

While the concept of home-based care and remote monitoring of patients may not be a new concept, the importance of this option for managing patients has taken on great importance during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

We are currently living and working in unprecedented times and the impact of the pandemic is quite evident, and it plays an important part in every health care worker’s daily life. The high volumes of patients presenting to emergency rooms and urgent care/walk-in clinics and seeking posthospitalization visits with their physicians is stressing the health care environment. In such difficult times, the hospital-at-home model of care provides a valuable and viable option to provide appropriate care to those patients who may require close monitoring of their health without being hospitalized and using valuable inpatient resources that could then be used for the higher-acuity patients. As a physician who lives this every day and as a practicing internist and a part-time administrator, I welcome the hospital-at-home approach that complements the care provided in the emergency room, inpatient and ambulatory practice settings. I believe this type of approach to patient care would benefit those patients who, while being acutely ill, may not require the 24/7 intensive care that more critically ill individuals may need. As long as the patients are provided with appropriate telemonitoring devices such as a blood pressure cuff, pulse oximeter, and thermometer, and have access to video telemonitoring, the appropriately selected patients would benefit from this method of care provision for their acute illness.
 

Mental health benefits

I see several benefits for patients who can be triaged/assigned to this telemonitoring model of care. A patient would probably be happier being at home because they could sleep in their own bed and eat their own food and be able to walk around their house or even venture outdoors to enjoy the fresh air and nature. Being able to do these things will contribute positively to their emotional and psychological well-being.

For some elderly individuals, having access to the familiarity of their surroundings would mean these patients would have fewer incidences of hospital-associated delirium or falls. Additionally, they would be able to enjoy the company of their family members, which, during this COVID pandemic, is not possible in many hospitals. This would reduce emotional tensions for the patients and their families and the risk of transmission of infections to the patients and their visitors in the hospitals.
 

Freeing up resources

More importantly, this model would help physicians and hospitals provide the much needed care to the appropriate patients in the appropriate settings, thereby leading to decreased use of emergency rooms, health care workers, and personal protective equipment – all of which are currently in high demand.

Having a dedicated team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other health care workers available to monitor these home-based patients on a daily or more frequent basis, depending on their health status, would result in these patients receiving equivalent care to what they would have received in a hospital.

Another positive outcome of using this home-based care model in the pandemic is that it would free up hospital beds for non–COVID-19 patients who might need hospitalization for management of their acute illnesses or exacerbation of chronic health conditions.
 

Possible limitations

This model of care has some limitations, including that it is not geared toward high volumes in my opinion and will not work in every home. Patients need to have Internet capabilities, phone services, and other features in their homes that make it possible for them to access this type of care. Additionally, patients may not be able to get their insurance companies to pay for these services. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently authorized patients to be transferred from EDs or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home, for how long will reimbursements for this kind of care continue? If insurance will not pay for this monitoring at home, then will physician practices and hospital based practices provide this non reimbursed service?

Also, patients and their families may not be accepting of this model of care because they may feel it is inferior to inpatient hospitalization.

Despite these limitations, as long as Medicare and other health insurance programs provide reimbursement for such hospital-at-home services, I foresee this concept being highly used and benefiting health care entities in the United States.
 

Dr. Deep is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Contact him at [email protected].

Background: A previous study has shown that patients with acute COPD exacerbations had little difference in rate of clinical cure with placebo or antibiotics when CRP is less than 40 mg/L.

Setting: 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom from January 2015 through September 2017.

Synopsis: More than 600 patients who presented to a primary care physician with an acute COPD exacerbation were randomized to point of care CRP testing vs. usual care. Clinicians in the CRP testing group were provided with a point-of-care testing unit along with an algorithm for results. If the CRP was greater than 40 mg/L, antibiotics were thought to be beneficial; but they were urged not to prescribe antibiotics if the level was less than 20 mg/L. For levels between 20 mg/L and 40 mg/L, it was suggested that antibiotics might be beneficial if the sputum is purulent.

The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for an acute COPD exacerbation within 4 weeks of randomization along with measurement of COPD-related health status on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks of randomization. Fewer antibiotics were prescribed in the CRP testing group over the usual care group (57% vs. 77%). The adjusted mean difference in the Clinical COPD Questionnaire total score at 2 weeks was –0.19 points, in favor of the CRP-guided group.

Bottom line: The use of point-of-care testing CRP as an adjunctive guide to antibiotic use in acute COPD exacerbations may lower the amount of antibiotic prescribing without compromising clinical outcomes.

Citation: Butler CC et al. C-reactive protein testing to guide antibiotics prescribing for COPD exacerbations. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 11; 381:111-120.

Dr. Choksi is a hospitalist and associate professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University, where she is assistant dean of admissions. She is president of the SHM St. Louis Chapter.

Background: A previous study has shown that patients with acute COPD exacerbations had little difference in rate of clinical cure with placebo or antibiotics when CRP is less than 40 mg/L.

Setting: 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom from January 2015 through September 2017.

Synopsis: More than 600 patients who presented to a primary care physician with an acute COPD exacerbation were randomized to point of care CRP testing vs. usual care. Clinicians in the CRP testing group were provided with a point-of-care testing unit along with an algorithm for results. If the CRP was greater than 40 mg/L, antibiotics were thought to be beneficial; but they were urged not to prescribe antibiotics if the level was less than 20 mg/L. For levels between 20 mg/L and 40 mg/L, it was suggested that antibiotics might be beneficial if the sputum is purulent.

The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for an acute COPD exacerbation within 4 weeks of randomization along with measurement of COPD-related health status on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks of randomization. Fewer antibiotics were prescribed in the CRP testing group over the usual care group (57% vs. 77%). The adjusted mean difference in the Clinical COPD Questionnaire total score at 2 weeks was –0.19 points, in favor of the CRP-guided group.

Bottom line: The use of point-of-care testing CRP as an adjunctive guide to antibiotic use in acute COPD exacerbations may lower the amount of antibiotic prescribing without compromising clinical outcomes.

Citation: Butler CC et al. C-reactive protein testing to guide antibiotics prescribing for COPD exacerbations. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 11; 381:111-120.

Dr. Choksi is a hospitalist and associate professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University, where she is assistant dean of admissions. She is president of the SHM St. Louis Chapter.

Background: A previous study has shown that patients with acute COPD exacerbations had little difference in rate of clinical cure with placebo or antibiotics when CRP is less than 40 mg/L.

Setting: 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom from January 2015 through September 2017.

Synopsis: More than 600 patients who presented to a primary care physician with an acute COPD exacerbation were randomized to point of care CRP testing vs. usual care. Clinicians in the CRP testing group were provided with a point-of-care testing unit along with an algorithm for results. If the CRP was greater than 40 mg/L, antibiotics were thought to be beneficial; but they were urged not to prescribe antibiotics if the level was less than 20 mg/L. For levels between 20 mg/L and 40 mg/L, it was suggested that antibiotics might be beneficial if the sputum is purulent.

The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for an acute COPD exacerbation within 4 weeks of randomization along with measurement of COPD-related health status on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks of randomization. Fewer antibiotics were prescribed in the CRP testing group over the usual care group (57% vs. 77%). The adjusted mean difference in the Clinical COPD Questionnaire total score at 2 weeks was –0.19 points, in favor of the CRP-guided group.

Bottom line: The use of point-of-care testing CRP as an adjunctive guide to antibiotic use in acute COPD exacerbations may lower the amount of antibiotic prescribing without compromising clinical outcomes.

Citation: Butler CC et al. C-reactive protein testing to guide antibiotics prescribing for COPD exacerbations. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 11; 381:111-120.

Dr. Choksi is a hospitalist and associate professor of internal medicine at Saint Louis University, where she is assistant dean of admissions. She is president of the SHM St. Louis Chapter.

As COVID-19 cases soared to new daily highs across the United States, November 2020 brought some exciting and promising vaccine efficacy results. Currently, the United States has four COVID-19 vaccines in phase 3 trials: the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (AZD1222), Pfizer/BioNTech’s (BNT162), and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (JNJ-78436735).

While Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna received fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration, AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 trials were resumed after a temporary hold. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have also submitted an emergency-use authorization application to the FDA after favorable results from a completed phase 3 clinical trial. The results so far seem promising, with Oxford/AstraZeneca’s combined analysis from different dosing regimens resulting in an average efficacy of 70%. Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna have each reported vaccines that are 90% and 95% effective respectively in trials.

However, even with a safe and effective vaccine, there must be an equal emphasis on a successful coronavirus vaccine program’s three pillars in the communities that are the hardest hit: participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations, equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations, and immunization uptake by minority populations.
 

1. Participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations

With a great emphasis on the inclusion of diverse populations, the Moderna vaccine clinical trials gained participation by racial and ethnic minorities. As of Oct. 21, 2020, the Moderna vaccine trial participants were 10% African American, 20% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 63% White, and 3% other.¹ Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer also had approximately 42% of overall – and 45% of U.S. – participants from diverse backgrounds. The proportional registration of racially and ethnically diverse participants in other vaccine trials is also anticipated to be challenging.

Though there has been an improvement in minority participation in COVID-19 vaccine trials, it is still below the ideal representation when compared with U.S. census data.² Ideally, participants in a clinical trial should represent the U.S. population to get a full picture of a medical product’s risks and benefits. However, recruitment rates in clinical trials have remained low among minorities for various reasons. Historically, African Americans make up only 5% of participants in U.S. clinical trials, while they represent 13% of the country’s general population; likewise, Hispanics are also underrepresented.³

The legacy of distrust in the medical system is deep-rooted and is one of the most substantial barriers to clinical trial participation. A plethora of unethical trials and experiments on the African American population have left a lasting impact. The most infamous and widely known was the “Tuskegee Study,” conducted by the United States Public Health Service to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in Black populations. In the study, performed without informed consent, Black men with latent or late syphilis received no treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a safe and reliable cure for syphilis. This human experimentation lasted for 40 years, resulting in 128 male patients who died from syphilis or its complications, 40 of their spouses infected, and 19 of their children with acquired congenital syphilis.

In another case, the father of modern gynecology, J. Marion Sims, allegedly performed experimental surgeries on enslaved Black women without consent. For more than 4 decades, North Carolina’s statewide eugenics program forcibly sterilized almost 7,600 people, many of whom were Black. Another story of exploitation involves Henrietta Lacks, whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, responsible for some of the most important medical advances of all time. Though her cells were commercialized and generated millions for medical researchers, neither Ms. Lacks nor her family knew the cell cultures existed until more than 20 years after her death from cervical cancer. Many years later, victims and families of the Tuskegee experiment, individuals sterilized by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, and the family of Henrietta Lacks received compensation, and Sims’s statue was taken down in 2018. Not too long ago, many criticized the FDA’s “Exception from Informed Consent policy” for compromising patients’ exercise of autonomy, and concern for overrepresenting African Americans in the U.S. EFIC trials.

Racial disparities in medical treatment and unconscious biases among providers are among the reasons for mistrust and lack of trial participation by minority populations today. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said that recent social upheaval sparked by the death of George Floyd has likely added to feelings of mistrust between minority groups and government or pharmaceutical companies. “Yet we need their participation if this is going to have a meaningful outcome,” he said.

While “Operation Warp Speed” is committed to developing and delivering a COVID-19 vaccine rapidly while adhering to safety and efficacy standards, the challenges to enrolling people from racial and ethnic minorities in trials have been a concern. The political partisanship and ever-shifting stances on widespread COVID-19 testing, use of facemasks, endorsement of unproven drugs for the disease, and accusations against the FDA for delaying human trials for the vaccine have contributed to the skepticism as well. Tremendous pressure for a rushed vaccine with unrealistic timelines, recent holds on AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 as well as the AZD1222 dosage error during trials have also raised skepticism of the safety and efficacy of vaccine trials.
 

2. Equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations

Enrollment in clinical trials is just a beginning; a more significant challenge would be the vaccine’s uptake when available to the general public. We still lack a consensus on whether it is lawful for race to be an explicit criterion for priority distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Recently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that the vaccine amount allotted to jurisdictions might be based on critical populations recommended for vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with input from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The NASEM framework lays out four-phased vaccine distribution approaches, emphasizing social equity by prioritizing vaccines for geographic areas identified through CDC’s social vulnerability index (SVI) or another more specific index. SVI has been a robust composite marker of minority status and language, household composition and transportation, and housing and disability, and predicted COVID-19 case counts in the United States in several studies. The National Academy of Medicine has also recommended racial minorities receive priority vaccination because they have been hard hit and are “worse off” socioeconomically.
 

3. Immunization uptake by minority populations

Though minority participation is crucial in developing the vaccine, more transparency, open discussions on ethical distribution, and awareness of side effects are required before vaccine approval or emergency-use authorization. Companies behind the four major COVID-19 vaccines in development have released their trials’ protocols, details on vaccine efficacy, and each product’s makeup to increase acceptance of the vaccine.

According to a recent Pew research study, about half of U.S. adults (51%) now say they would definitely or probably get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 if it were available today. Nearly as many (49%) say they definitely or probably would not get vaccinated at this time. Intent to get a COVID-19 vaccine has fallen from 72% in May 2020, a 21–percentage point drop, and Black adults were much less likely to say they would get a vaccine than other Americans.³ This is concerning as previous studies have shown that race and ethnicity can influence immune responses to vaccination. There is evidence of racial and ethnic differences in immune response following rubella vaccination, Hib–tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine, antibody responses to the influenza A virus components of IIV3 or 4, and immune responses after measles vaccination.^4-9

On the other hand, significant differences in reporting rates of adverse events after human papillomavirus vaccinations were found in different race and ethnicity groups in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.¹⁰ Thus, there is ample evidence that race and ethnicity affect responsiveness to a vaccine. Inequity in participation in a clinical trial may lead to an ineffective or one with a suboptimal response or even an unsafe vaccine.

When we look at other immunization programs, according to various surveys in recent years, non-Hispanic Blacks have lower annual vaccination rates for flu, pneumonia, and human papillomavirus vaccinations nationally, compared with non-Hispanic White adults.¹¹ It is a cause of concern as a proportion of the population must be vaccinated to reach “community immunity” or “herd immunity” from vaccination. Depending on varying biological, environmental, and sociobehavioral factors, the threshold for COVID-19 herd immunity may be between 55% and 82% of the population.¹² Hence, neither a vaccine trial nor an immunization program can succeed without participation from all communities and age groups.
 

Role of hospitalists

Hospitalists, who give immunizations as part of the hospital inpatient quality reporting program, are uniquely placed in this pandemic. Working on the front lines, we may encounter questions, concerns, rejections, and discussions about the pros and cons of the COVID-19 vaccine from patients.

Investigators at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington, recently recommended three steps physicians and others can take now to ensure more people get the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. Engaging frontline health professionals was one of the suggested steps to encourage more people to get the vaccine.¹³ However, it is imperative to understand that vaccine hesitancy might be an issue for health care providers as well, if concerns for scientific standards and involvement of diverse populations are not addressed.

We are only starting to develop a safe and effective immunization program. We must bring more to unrepresented communities than just vaccine trials. Information, education, availability, and access to the vaccines will make for a successful COVID-19 immunization program.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Moderna. COVE study. 2020 Oct 21. https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/content_documents/2020-COVE-Study-Enrollment-Completion-10.22.20.pdf

2. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick facts: Population estimates, July 1, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

3. Pew Research Center. U.S. Public Now Divided Over Whether To Get COVID-19 Vaccine. 2020 Sep 17. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/17/u-s-public-now-divided-over-whether-to-get-covid-19-vaccine/

4. Haralambieva IH et al. Associations between race sex and immune response variations to rubella vaccination in two independent cohorts. Vaccine. 2014;32:1946-53.

5. McQuillan GM et al. Seroprevalence of measles antibody in the U.S. population 1999-2004. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:1459–64. doi: 10.1086/522866.

6. Christy C et al. Effect of gender race and parental education on immunogenicity and reported reactogenicity of acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines. Pediatrics. 1995;96:584-7.

7. Poland GA et al. Measles antibody seroprevalence rates among immunized Inuit Innu and Caucasian subjects. Vaccine. 1999;17:1525-31.

8. Greenberg DP et al. Immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in young infants. The Kaiser-UCLA Vaccine Study Group. J Infect Dis. 1994;170:76-81.

9. Kurupati R et al. Race-related differences in antibody responses to the inactivated influenza vaccine are linked to distinct prevaccination gene expression profiles in blood. Oncotarget. 2016;7(39):62898-911.

10. Huang J et al. Characterization of the differential adverse event rates by race/ethnicity groups for HPV vaccine by integrating data from different sources. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:539.

11. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=22

12. Sanche S et al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7).

13. American Medical Association. How to ready patients now so they’ll get a COVID-19 vaccine later. 2020 May 27. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/how-ready-patients-now-so-they-ll-get-covid-19-vaccine-later

As COVID-19 cases soared to new daily highs across the United States, November 2020 brought some exciting and promising vaccine efficacy results. Currently, the United States has four COVID-19 vaccines in phase 3 trials: the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (AZD1222), Pfizer/BioNTech’s (BNT162), and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (JNJ-78436735).

While Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna received fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration, AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 trials were resumed after a temporary hold. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have also submitted an emergency-use authorization application to the FDA after favorable results from a completed phase 3 clinical trial. The results so far seem promising, with Oxford/AstraZeneca’s combined analysis from different dosing regimens resulting in an average efficacy of 70%. Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna have each reported vaccines that are 90% and 95% effective respectively in trials.

However, even with a safe and effective vaccine, there must be an equal emphasis on a successful coronavirus vaccine program’s three pillars in the communities that are the hardest hit: participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations, equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations, and immunization uptake by minority populations.
 

1. Participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations

With a great emphasis on the inclusion of diverse populations, the Moderna vaccine clinical trials gained participation by racial and ethnic minorities. As of Oct. 21, 2020, the Moderna vaccine trial participants were 10% African American, 20% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 63% White, and 3% other.¹ Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer also had approximately 42% of overall – and 45% of U.S. – participants from diverse backgrounds. The proportional registration of racially and ethnically diverse participants in other vaccine trials is also anticipated to be challenging.

Though there has been an improvement in minority participation in COVID-19 vaccine trials, it is still below the ideal representation when compared with U.S. census data.² Ideally, participants in a clinical trial should represent the U.S. population to get a full picture of a medical product’s risks and benefits. However, recruitment rates in clinical trials have remained low among minorities for various reasons. Historically, African Americans make up only 5% of participants in U.S. clinical trials, while they represent 13% of the country’s general population; likewise, Hispanics are also underrepresented.³

The legacy of distrust in the medical system is deep-rooted and is one of the most substantial barriers to clinical trial participation. A plethora of unethical trials and experiments on the African American population have left a lasting impact. The most infamous and widely known was the “Tuskegee Study,” conducted by the United States Public Health Service to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in Black populations. In the study, performed without informed consent, Black men with latent or late syphilis received no treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a safe and reliable cure for syphilis. This human experimentation lasted for 40 years, resulting in 128 male patients who died from syphilis or its complications, 40 of their spouses infected, and 19 of their children with acquired congenital syphilis.

In another case, the father of modern gynecology, J. Marion Sims, allegedly performed experimental surgeries on enslaved Black women without consent. For more than 4 decades, North Carolina’s statewide eugenics program forcibly sterilized almost 7,600 people, many of whom were Black. Another story of exploitation involves Henrietta Lacks, whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, responsible for some of the most important medical advances of all time. Though her cells were commercialized and generated millions for medical researchers, neither Ms. Lacks nor her family knew the cell cultures existed until more than 20 years after her death from cervical cancer. Many years later, victims and families of the Tuskegee experiment, individuals sterilized by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, and the family of Henrietta Lacks received compensation, and Sims’s statue was taken down in 2018. Not too long ago, many criticized the FDA’s “Exception from Informed Consent policy” for compromising patients’ exercise of autonomy, and concern for overrepresenting African Americans in the U.S. EFIC trials.

Racial disparities in medical treatment and unconscious biases among providers are among the reasons for mistrust and lack of trial participation by minority populations today. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said that recent social upheaval sparked by the death of George Floyd has likely added to feelings of mistrust between minority groups and government or pharmaceutical companies. “Yet we need their participation if this is going to have a meaningful outcome,” he said.

While “Operation Warp Speed” is committed to developing and delivering a COVID-19 vaccine rapidly while adhering to safety and efficacy standards, the challenges to enrolling people from racial and ethnic minorities in trials have been a concern. The political partisanship and ever-shifting stances on widespread COVID-19 testing, use of facemasks, endorsement of unproven drugs for the disease, and accusations against the FDA for delaying human trials for the vaccine have contributed to the skepticism as well. Tremendous pressure for a rushed vaccine with unrealistic timelines, recent holds on AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 as well as the AZD1222 dosage error during trials have also raised skepticism of the safety and efficacy of vaccine trials.
 

2. Equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations

Enrollment in clinical trials is just a beginning; a more significant challenge would be the vaccine’s uptake when available to the general public. We still lack a consensus on whether it is lawful for race to be an explicit criterion for priority distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Recently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that the vaccine amount allotted to jurisdictions might be based on critical populations recommended for vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with input from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The NASEM framework lays out four-phased vaccine distribution approaches, emphasizing social equity by prioritizing vaccines for geographic areas identified through CDC’s social vulnerability index (SVI) or another more specific index. SVI has been a robust composite marker of minority status and language, household composition and transportation, and housing and disability, and predicted COVID-19 case counts in the United States in several studies. The National Academy of Medicine has also recommended racial minorities receive priority vaccination because they have been hard hit and are “worse off” socioeconomically.
 

3. Immunization uptake by minority populations

Though minority participation is crucial in developing the vaccine, more transparency, open discussions on ethical distribution, and awareness of side effects are required before vaccine approval or emergency-use authorization. Companies behind the four major COVID-19 vaccines in development have released their trials’ protocols, details on vaccine efficacy, and each product’s makeup to increase acceptance of the vaccine.

According to a recent Pew research study, about half of U.S. adults (51%) now say they would definitely or probably get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 if it were available today. Nearly as many (49%) say they definitely or probably would not get vaccinated at this time. Intent to get a COVID-19 vaccine has fallen from 72% in May 2020, a 21–percentage point drop, and Black adults were much less likely to say they would get a vaccine than other Americans.³ This is concerning as previous studies have shown that race and ethnicity can influence immune responses to vaccination. There is evidence of racial and ethnic differences in immune response following rubella vaccination, Hib–tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine, antibody responses to the influenza A virus components of IIV3 or 4, and immune responses after measles vaccination.^4-9

On the other hand, significant differences in reporting rates of adverse events after human papillomavirus vaccinations were found in different race and ethnicity groups in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.¹⁰ Thus, there is ample evidence that race and ethnicity affect responsiveness to a vaccine. Inequity in participation in a clinical trial may lead to an ineffective or one with a suboptimal response or even an unsafe vaccine.

When we look at other immunization programs, according to various surveys in recent years, non-Hispanic Blacks have lower annual vaccination rates for flu, pneumonia, and human papillomavirus vaccinations nationally, compared with non-Hispanic White adults.¹¹ It is a cause of concern as a proportion of the population must be vaccinated to reach “community immunity” or “herd immunity” from vaccination. Depending on varying biological, environmental, and sociobehavioral factors, the threshold for COVID-19 herd immunity may be between 55% and 82% of the population.¹² Hence, neither a vaccine trial nor an immunization program can succeed without participation from all communities and age groups.
 

Role of hospitalists

Hospitalists, who give immunizations as part of the hospital inpatient quality reporting program, are uniquely placed in this pandemic. Working on the front lines, we may encounter questions, concerns, rejections, and discussions about the pros and cons of the COVID-19 vaccine from patients.

Investigators at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington, recently recommended three steps physicians and others can take now to ensure more people get the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. Engaging frontline health professionals was one of the suggested steps to encourage more people to get the vaccine.¹³ However, it is imperative to understand that vaccine hesitancy might be an issue for health care providers as well, if concerns for scientific standards and involvement of diverse populations are not addressed.

We are only starting to develop a safe and effective immunization program. We must bring more to unrepresented communities than just vaccine trials. Information, education, availability, and access to the vaccines will make for a successful COVID-19 immunization program.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Moderna. COVE study. 2020 Oct 21. https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/content_documents/2020-COVE-Study-Enrollment-Completion-10.22.20.pdf

2. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick facts: Population estimates, July 1, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

3. Pew Research Center. U.S. Public Now Divided Over Whether To Get COVID-19 Vaccine. 2020 Sep 17. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/17/u-s-public-now-divided-over-whether-to-get-covid-19-vaccine/

4. Haralambieva IH et al. Associations between race sex and immune response variations to rubella vaccination in two independent cohorts. Vaccine. 2014;32:1946-53.

5. McQuillan GM et al. Seroprevalence of measles antibody in the U.S. population 1999-2004. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:1459–64. doi: 10.1086/522866.

6. Christy C et al. Effect of gender race and parental education on immunogenicity and reported reactogenicity of acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines. Pediatrics. 1995;96:584-7.

7. Poland GA et al. Measles antibody seroprevalence rates among immunized Inuit Innu and Caucasian subjects. Vaccine. 1999;17:1525-31.

8. Greenberg DP et al. Immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in young infants. The Kaiser-UCLA Vaccine Study Group. J Infect Dis. 1994;170:76-81.

9. Kurupati R et al. Race-related differences in antibody responses to the inactivated influenza vaccine are linked to distinct prevaccination gene expression profiles in blood. Oncotarget. 2016;7(39):62898-911.

10. Huang J et al. Characterization of the differential adverse event rates by race/ethnicity groups for HPV vaccine by integrating data from different sources. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:539.

11. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=22

12. Sanche S et al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7).

13. American Medical Association. How to ready patients now so they’ll get a COVID-19 vaccine later. 2020 May 27. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/how-ready-patients-now-so-they-ll-get-covid-19-vaccine-later

As COVID-19 cases soared to new daily highs across the United States, November 2020 brought some exciting and promising vaccine efficacy results. Currently, the United States has four COVID-19 vaccines in phase 3 trials: the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (AZD1222), Pfizer/BioNTech’s (BNT162), and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (JNJ-78436735).

While Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna received fast-track designation by the Food and Drug Administration, AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 trials were resumed after a temporary hold. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have also submitted an emergency-use authorization application to the FDA after favorable results from a completed phase 3 clinical trial. The results so far seem promising, with Oxford/AstraZeneca’s combined analysis from different dosing regimens resulting in an average efficacy of 70%. Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna have each reported vaccines that are 90% and 95% effective respectively in trials.

However, even with a safe and effective vaccine, there must be an equal emphasis on a successful coronavirus vaccine program’s three pillars in the communities that are the hardest hit: participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations, equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations, and immunization uptake by minority populations.
 

1. Participation in the vaccine trials by minority populations

With a great emphasis on the inclusion of diverse populations, the Moderna vaccine clinical trials gained participation by racial and ethnic minorities. As of Oct. 21, 2020, the Moderna vaccine trial participants were 10% African American, 20% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 63% White, and 3% other.¹ Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer also had approximately 42% of overall – and 45% of U.S. – participants from diverse backgrounds. The proportional registration of racially and ethnically diverse participants in other vaccine trials is also anticipated to be challenging.

Though there has been an improvement in minority participation in COVID-19 vaccine trials, it is still below the ideal representation when compared with U.S. census data.² Ideally, participants in a clinical trial should represent the U.S. population to get a full picture of a medical product’s risks and benefits. However, recruitment rates in clinical trials have remained low among minorities for various reasons. Historically, African Americans make up only 5% of participants in U.S. clinical trials, while they represent 13% of the country’s general population; likewise, Hispanics are also underrepresented.³

The legacy of distrust in the medical system is deep-rooted and is one of the most substantial barriers to clinical trial participation. A plethora of unethical trials and experiments on the African American population have left a lasting impact. The most infamous and widely known was the “Tuskegee Study,” conducted by the United States Public Health Service to “observe the natural history of untreated syphilis” in Black populations. In the study, performed without informed consent, Black men with latent or late syphilis received no treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a safe and reliable cure for syphilis. This human experimentation lasted for 40 years, resulting in 128 male patients who died from syphilis or its complications, 40 of their spouses infected, and 19 of their children with acquired congenital syphilis.

In another case, the father of modern gynecology, J. Marion Sims, allegedly performed experimental surgeries on enslaved Black women without consent. For more than 4 decades, North Carolina’s statewide eugenics program forcibly sterilized almost 7,600 people, many of whom were Black. Another story of exploitation involves Henrietta Lacks, whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, responsible for some of the most important medical advances of all time. Though her cells were commercialized and generated millions for medical researchers, neither Ms. Lacks nor her family knew the cell cultures existed until more than 20 years after her death from cervical cancer. Many years later, victims and families of the Tuskegee experiment, individuals sterilized by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, and the family of Henrietta Lacks received compensation, and Sims’s statue was taken down in 2018. Not too long ago, many criticized the FDA’s “Exception from Informed Consent policy” for compromising patients’ exercise of autonomy, and concern for overrepresenting African Americans in the U.S. EFIC trials.

Racial disparities in medical treatment and unconscious biases among providers are among the reasons for mistrust and lack of trial participation by minority populations today. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said that recent social upheaval sparked by the death of George Floyd has likely added to feelings of mistrust between minority groups and government or pharmaceutical companies. “Yet we need their participation if this is going to have a meaningful outcome,” he said.

While “Operation Warp Speed” is committed to developing and delivering a COVID-19 vaccine rapidly while adhering to safety and efficacy standards, the challenges to enrolling people from racial and ethnic minorities in trials have been a concern. The political partisanship and ever-shifting stances on widespread COVID-19 testing, use of facemasks, endorsement of unproven drugs for the disease, and accusations against the FDA for delaying human trials for the vaccine have contributed to the skepticism as well. Tremendous pressure for a rushed vaccine with unrealistic timelines, recent holds on AZD1222 and JNJ-78436735 as well as the AZD1222 dosage error during trials have also raised skepticism of the safety and efficacy of vaccine trials.
 

2. Equitable allocation and distribution of vaccine for minority populations

Enrollment in clinical trials is just a beginning; a more significant challenge would be the vaccine’s uptake when available to the general public. We still lack a consensus on whether it is lawful for race to be an explicit criterion for priority distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Recently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that the vaccine amount allotted to jurisdictions might be based on critical populations recommended for vaccination by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices with input from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The NASEM framework lays out four-phased vaccine distribution approaches, emphasizing social equity by prioritizing vaccines for geographic areas identified through CDC’s social vulnerability index (SVI) or another more specific index. SVI has been a robust composite marker of minority status and language, household composition and transportation, and housing and disability, and predicted COVID-19 case counts in the United States in several studies. The National Academy of Medicine has also recommended racial minorities receive priority vaccination because they have been hard hit and are “worse off” socioeconomically.
 

3. Immunization uptake by minority populations

Though minority participation is crucial in developing the vaccine, more transparency, open discussions on ethical distribution, and awareness of side effects are required before vaccine approval or emergency-use authorization. Companies behind the four major COVID-19 vaccines in development have released their trials’ protocols, details on vaccine efficacy, and each product’s makeup to increase acceptance of the vaccine.

According to a recent Pew research study, about half of U.S. adults (51%) now say they would definitely or probably get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 if it were available today. Nearly as many (49%) say they definitely or probably would not get vaccinated at this time. Intent to get a COVID-19 vaccine has fallen from 72% in May 2020, a 21–percentage point drop, and Black adults were much less likely to say they would get a vaccine than other Americans.³ This is concerning as previous studies have shown that race and ethnicity can influence immune responses to vaccination. There is evidence of racial and ethnic differences in immune response following rubella vaccination, Hib–tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine, antibody responses to the influenza A virus components of IIV3 or 4, and immune responses after measles vaccination.^4-9

On the other hand, significant differences in reporting rates of adverse events after human papillomavirus vaccinations were found in different race and ethnicity groups in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.¹⁰ Thus, there is ample evidence that race and ethnicity affect responsiveness to a vaccine. Inequity in participation in a clinical trial may lead to an ineffective or one with a suboptimal response or even an unsafe vaccine.

When we look at other immunization programs, according to various surveys in recent years, non-Hispanic Blacks have lower annual vaccination rates for flu, pneumonia, and human papillomavirus vaccinations nationally, compared with non-Hispanic White adults.¹¹ It is a cause of concern as a proportion of the population must be vaccinated to reach “community immunity” or “herd immunity” from vaccination. Depending on varying biological, environmental, and sociobehavioral factors, the threshold for COVID-19 herd immunity may be between 55% and 82% of the population.¹² Hence, neither a vaccine trial nor an immunization program can succeed without participation from all communities and age groups.
 

Role of hospitalists

Hospitalists, who give immunizations as part of the hospital inpatient quality reporting program, are uniquely placed in this pandemic. Working on the front lines, we may encounter questions, concerns, rejections, and discussions about the pros and cons of the COVID-19 vaccine from patients.

Investigators at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, both in Washington, recently recommended three steps physicians and others can take now to ensure more people get the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. Engaging frontline health professionals was one of the suggested steps to encourage more people to get the vaccine.¹³ However, it is imperative to understand that vaccine hesitancy might be an issue for health care providers as well, if concerns for scientific standards and involvement of diverse populations are not addressed.

We are only starting to develop a safe and effective immunization program. We must bring more to unrepresented communities than just vaccine trials. Information, education, availability, and access to the vaccines will make for a successful COVID-19 immunization program.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Moderna. COVE study. 2020 Oct 21. https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/content_documents/2020-COVE-Study-Enrollment-Completion-10.22.20.pdf

2. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick facts: Population estimates, July 1, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

3. Pew Research Center. U.S. Public Now Divided Over Whether To Get COVID-19 Vaccine. 2020 Sep 17. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/17/u-s-public-now-divided-over-whether-to-get-covid-19-vaccine/

4. Haralambieva IH et al. Associations between race sex and immune response variations to rubella vaccination in two independent cohorts. Vaccine. 2014;32:1946-53.

5. McQuillan GM et al. Seroprevalence of measles antibody in the U.S. population 1999-2004. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:1459–64. doi: 10.1086/522866.

6. Christy C et al. Effect of gender race and parental education on immunogenicity and reported reactogenicity of acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines. Pediatrics. 1995;96:584-7.

7. Poland GA et al. Measles antibody seroprevalence rates among immunized Inuit Innu and Caucasian subjects. Vaccine. 1999;17:1525-31.

8. Greenberg DP et al. Immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in young infants. The Kaiser-UCLA Vaccine Study Group. J Infect Dis. 1994;170:76-81.

9. Kurupati R et al. Race-related differences in antibody responses to the inactivated influenza vaccine are linked to distinct prevaccination gene expression profiles in blood. Oncotarget. 2016;7(39):62898-911.

10. Huang J et al. Characterization of the differential adverse event rates by race/ethnicity groups for HPV vaccine by integrating data from different sources. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:539.

11. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=22

12. Sanche S et al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7).

13. American Medical Association. How to ready patients now so they’ll get a COVID-19 vaccine later. 2020 May 27. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/how-ready-patients-now-so-they-ll-get-covid-19-vaccine-later

The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.

“The number of new child COVID-19 cases reported this week, nearly 154,000, is the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.

For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.

Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.

There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.

[email protected]

The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.

“The number of new child COVID-19 cases reported this week, nearly 154,000, is the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.

For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.

Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.

There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.

[email protected]

The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.

“The number of new child COVID-19 cases reported this week, nearly 154,000, is the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.

For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.

Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.

There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.

[email protected]

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when an individual who is alcohol-dependent suddenly stops or significantly reduces his/her alcohol intake.¹ Symptoms of AWS, which can be fatal, include anxiety, restlessness, seizures, confusion, and delirium.¹ Because benzodiazepines have been proven effective in improving symptoms of AWS, they are considered the first-line treatment, but they also carry the risk of abuse, psychomotor sedation, cognitive impairment, and interactions with alcohol.¹

Non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants (NBACs) such as valproic acid (VPA) and carbamazepine may offer benefit as alternatives or adjuncts to benzodiazepines.¹ Many NBACs affect the functioning of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) neurotransmitters,² which are particularly dysregulated in patients with AWS. Because NBACs help stabilize this imbalance, they may be useful for managing AWS and preventing relapse without the risks associated with benzodiazepines.²

Valproic acid: A better choice than carbamazepine

Compared with other NBACs, VPA and carbamazepine have been studied more extensively for treating patients with AWS, and their clinical effectiveness has been well documented.¹ For mild-to-moderate AWS, VPA and carbamazepine may be as effective as benzodiazepines in reducing the severity of symptoms, and more potent for preventing withdrawal seizures.¹

Increasing data suggests that compared with VPA, adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine for AWS may be more frequently associated with intolerable adverse effects such as ataxia, orthostatic hypotension, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting.¹ The rapid onset of AWS requires rapid-acting pharmacotherapy.¹ In attempting to rapidly achieve the desired plasma concentrations of carbamazepine, clinicians may risk inducing adverse effects. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA is associated with faster symptom resolution, a shorter duration of pharmacologic treatment, fewer transfers to the ICU, fewer withdrawal seizures, and a more favorable adverse effect profile.¹ Likely due to its shorter half-life, VPA delivers its therapeutic effects without producing significant adverse effects.¹

Early and aggressive treatment of AWS is needed to block kindling,³ which is characterized by the worsening of withdrawal symptoms each time an individual attempts to quit drinking alcohol. Compared with carbamazepine, VPA may be more helpful for blocking kindling.³

More data is needed

Due to ethical concerns, few studies have compared anticonvulsant medications with placebo for treating AWS.² Most studies examining NBACs for AWS have either used the anticonvulsant as an adjunct to a benzodiazepine to examine improvement in withdrawal symptoms, or compared the anticonvulsant with placebo or another intervention to assess the amount of a benzodiazepine required for safe detoxification.^2,4 Additionally, most studies examining NBACs have been short, and few followed patients after the active medication period, which limits our knowledge of the long-term effectiveness of NBACs.² Before NBACs can replace benzodiazepines for managing AWS, further evidence from clinical trials is needed to assess their efficiency as a stand-alone treatment.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives is a new department in Current Psychiatry in which we interview a prominent psychiatrist about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the field of psychiatry.

In this first Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Dilip V. Jeste, MD. Dr. Jeste is Senior Associate Dean for Healthy Aging and Senior Care, Estelle and Edgar Levi Memorial Chair in Aging, Director of the Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, University of California San Diego; and Co-Director of the UC San Diego-IBM Center on Artificial Intelligence for Healthy Living. His main areas of research include schizophrenia, neuro­psychiatric interventions, and successful aging. He served as the 139th President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and also is a past president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the West Coast College of Biological Psychiatry, and founding president of International College of Geriatric Psychoneuropharmacology.

Dr. Aftab: The focus of your term as president of the APA was on “positive psychiatry.” You are also one of the world’s foremost experts in this area. How successful have you been in your mission to promote positive psychiatry, and how has your message been received?

Dr. Jeste: Let me start with a little bit of background about why I got into positive psychiatry. As a geriatric psychiatrist, my research work has brought me face to face with the paradox of aging: although physical health declines with age, mental health and well-being improve on average. This is the case not just for individuals in the community but also for individuals with serious mental illnesses. That got me into thinking more and more about the ways in which we can bring positive change in the lives of patients. When I became the president of the APA, one of my main tasks was to finalize and publish the DSM-5, which rightly focuses on the disorders we treat, but it also provided me with an opportunity to highlight the side of psychiatry that focuses on the positive aspects of our own and our patients’ lives, such as wisdom, resilience, meaning, and social connectedness.

As is the case with any new idea, there is a lot of resistance in the beginning and this will always be the case. However, I would say that positive psychiatry has been received very well. We now have an APA Caucus and a World Psychiatric Association Section on positive psychiatry. Our book, Positive Psychiatry, turned out to be one of the best sellers for American Psychiatric Publishing! Every year, there are symposia on positive psychiatry and papers and books from other countries. Overall, the reception has been very promising.

Dr. Aftab: Thank you for this interesting background, Dr. Jeste. Now let me ask you about the current state of psychiatry. What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?

Dr. Jeste: Psychiatry’s unique strength is our skill in promoting adaptive behavior change, with a focus on positive factors such as resilience, wisdom, optimism, social engagement, improved health, and longevity. If you look at the research literature, the effect sizes of factors such as optimism, resilience, and social engagement are equal to or greater than interventions such as statins, smoking cessation, and exercise. Cardiothoracic surgeons and radiologists can’t help people increase their resilience, optimism, and social engagement, but psychiatrists can. Behavior change is our expertise. When people are suicidal, we give them hope; we help depressed individuals become active, productive, and happy. We treat people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, reduce their psychopathological behaviors, and improve their everyday functioning.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab

Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?

Dr. Jeste: Unfortunately, there are a lot of restrictions posed by the current reimbursement system. As a result, psychiatrists spend most of their time prescribing medications in clinical practice. I have nothing against psychopharmacology, but we also need to focus on important aspects of our lives, such as lifestyle, cognitive attitudes, self-care, and social engagement. We need to go beyond symptom reduction. A prominent example is loneliness, which is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality; the treatment for loneliness is not increasing social network, it’s actually changing one’s perception of and ability to enhance appropriate socialization. Who can do that? Psychiatrists! But we don’t do that right now because the health insurance system doesn’t reimburse psychiatrists to do that.

Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces? You had to fend off a variety of challenges during your year as APA president, such as issues surrounding revision of DSM-5. How has that experience shaped your assessment?

Dr. Jeste: I was honored to oversee the finalization and publication of DSM-5 as the president of the APA, even though I lost a lot of sleep working on it! What I found was that there was a lot of antagonism in the media, as well as among several advocacy groups, about the DSM. The misperception was that psychiatry and the APA were trying to expand diagnoses so that the drug companies could sell medications to more people, and psychiatry would benefit from this because of its relationship with the industry. That was actually not the case at all. What I tried to do was to understand where these groups were coming from, and to treat them as collaborators and partners, not as enemies. One thing I am particularly proud of is that we established the Summit Group for DSM-5, which brought together perspectives of the various stakeholders, and our communication both within and outside of the APA improved significantly. It’s gratifying to note that much of the controversy in the media died down after DSM-5 was published. The often-critical New York Times wrote that while DSM-5 is far from perfect, it is the best we have today clinically, and I’m very proud of the work we did on it.

Dr. Aftab: What sort of opportunities lie ahead for psychiatry? What do you envision for the future of the field?

Continue to: Dr. Jeste

Dr. Jeste: As a neuroscientist, I’m excited about the new developments in brain science. Our understanding of the neurobiologic basis of mental illnesses is slowly but surely increasing. I’m also very heartened by all the research going on with regard to the prevention of mental illnesses. I think we will be able to reduce the risk of many psychiatric disorders in the future. This is an exciting time for the field, and psychiatry is going to look very different 20 years from now!

Dr. Aftab: Some people think there’s a conflict between a neuroscientific and psychosocial understanding of psychiatry. How do you think the 2 relate to each other?

Dr. Jeste: The reality, I think, is that there is no conflict. Ultimately, the mind is a function of the brain, and the mind operates within a society. Neuroscientists are also realizing the importance of psychosocial aspects, and there is a growing social neuroscience, looking at the neurobiology of things such as loneliness, social isolation, and wisdom. The effects of psychosocial interventions such as meditation and long-term cognitive-behavioral therapy on the brain are now indisputable. I like to say that psychosocial interventions are often more biological in their effects than the drugs!

Dr. Aftab: Any words of wisdom for psychiatry trainees and early career psychiatrists?

Dr. Jeste: First of all, I congratulate them for going into psychiatry, which is rapidly advancing and is the field of the future. Looking at new developments, such as in artificial intelligence, I wish I could be a young person again just getting into psychiatry! The role of psychiatrists is also evolving, and psychiatrists will become leaders of multidisciplinary teams. I would advise trainees and early career psychiatrists not to get frustrated by issues such as insurance reimbursements; these obstacles will pass. Society is becoming far more conscious of the importance of mental health to our well-being. So I see a reason to be optimistic. I would also mention that the younger generation has a lot to teach the older generation while at the same time benefitting from the wisdom they have to offer. One of the best things we can promote is intergenerational activity, both within and outside of our profession.

Editor’s note: Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives is a new department in Current Psychiatry in which we interview a prominent psychiatrist about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the field of psychiatry.

In this first Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Dilip V. Jeste, MD. Dr. Jeste is Senior Associate Dean for Healthy Aging and Senior Care, Estelle and Edgar Levi Memorial Chair in Aging, Director of the Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, University of California San Diego; and Co-Director of the UC San Diego-IBM Center on Artificial Intelligence for Healthy Living. His main areas of research include schizophrenia, neuro­psychiatric interventions, and successful aging. He served as the 139th President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and also is a past president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the West Coast College of Biological Psychiatry, and founding president of International College of Geriatric Psychoneuropharmacology.

Dr. Aftab: The focus of your term as president of the APA was on “positive psychiatry.” You are also one of the world’s foremost experts in this area. How successful have you been in your mission to promote positive psychiatry, and how has your message been received?

Dr. Jeste: Let me start with a little bit of background about why I got into positive psychiatry. As a geriatric psychiatrist, my research work has brought me face to face with the paradox of aging: although physical health declines with age, mental health and well-being improve on average. This is the case not just for individuals in the community but also for individuals with serious mental illnesses. That got me into thinking more and more about the ways in which we can bring positive change in the lives of patients. When I became the president of the APA, one of my main tasks was to finalize and publish the DSM-5, which rightly focuses on the disorders we treat, but it also provided me with an opportunity to highlight the side of psychiatry that focuses on the positive aspects of our own and our patients’ lives, such as wisdom, resilience, meaning, and social connectedness.

As is the case with any new idea, there is a lot of resistance in the beginning and this will always be the case. However, I would say that positive psychiatry has been received very well. We now have an APA Caucus and a World Psychiatric Association Section on positive psychiatry. Our book, Positive Psychiatry, turned out to be one of the best sellers for American Psychiatric Publishing! Every year, there are symposia on positive psychiatry and papers and books from other countries. Overall, the reception has been very promising.

Dr. Aftab: Thank you for this interesting background, Dr. Jeste. Now let me ask you about the current state of psychiatry. What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?

Dr. Jeste: Psychiatry’s unique strength is our skill in promoting adaptive behavior change, with a focus on positive factors such as resilience, wisdom, optimism, social engagement, improved health, and longevity. If you look at the research literature, the effect sizes of factors such as optimism, resilience, and social engagement are equal to or greater than interventions such as statins, smoking cessation, and exercise. Cardiothoracic surgeons and radiologists can’t help people increase their resilience, optimism, and social engagement, but psychiatrists can. Behavior change is our expertise. When people are suicidal, we give them hope; we help depressed individuals become active, productive, and happy. We treat people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, reduce their psychopathological behaviors, and improve their everyday functioning.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab

Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?

Dr. Jeste: Unfortunately, there are a lot of restrictions posed by the current reimbursement system. As a result, psychiatrists spend most of their time prescribing medications in clinical practice. I have nothing against psychopharmacology, but we also need to focus on important aspects of our lives, such as lifestyle, cognitive attitudes, self-care, and social engagement. We need to go beyond symptom reduction. A prominent example is loneliness, which is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality; the treatment for loneliness is not increasing social network, it’s actually changing one’s perception of and ability to enhance appropriate socialization. Who can do that? Psychiatrists! But we don’t do that right now because the health insurance system doesn’t reimburse psychiatrists to do that.

Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces? You had to fend off a variety of challenges during your year as APA president, such as issues surrounding revision of DSM-5. How has that experience shaped your assessment?

Dr. Jeste: I was honored to oversee the finalization and publication of DSM-5 as the president of the APA, even though I lost a lot of sleep working on it! What I found was that there was a lot of antagonism in the media, as well as among several advocacy groups, about the DSM. The misperception was that psychiatry and the APA were trying to expand diagnoses so that the drug companies could sell medications to more people, and psychiatry would benefit from this because of its relationship with the industry. That was actually not the case at all. What I tried to do was to understand where these groups were coming from, and to treat them as collaborators and partners, not as enemies. One thing I am particularly proud of is that we established the Summit Group for DSM-5, which brought together perspectives of the various stakeholders, and our communication both within and outside of the APA improved significantly. It’s gratifying to note that much of the controversy in the media died down after DSM-5 was published. The often-critical New York Times wrote that while DSM-5 is far from perfect, it is the best we have today clinically, and I’m very proud of the work we did on it.

Dr. Aftab: What sort of opportunities lie ahead for psychiatry? What do you envision for the future of the field?

Continue to: Dr. Jeste

Dr. Jeste: As a neuroscientist, I’m excited about the new developments in brain science. Our understanding of the neurobiologic basis of mental illnesses is slowly but surely increasing. I’m also very heartened by all the research going on with regard to the prevention of mental illnesses. I think we will be able to reduce the risk of many psychiatric disorders in the future. This is an exciting time for the field, and psychiatry is going to look very different 20 years from now!

Dr. Aftab: Some people think there’s a conflict between a neuroscientific and psychosocial understanding of psychiatry. How do you think the 2 relate to each other?

Dr. Jeste: The reality, I think, is that there is no conflict. Ultimately, the mind is a function of the brain, and the mind operates within a society. Neuroscientists are also realizing the importance of psychosocial aspects, and there is a growing social neuroscience, looking at the neurobiology of things such as loneliness, social isolation, and wisdom. The effects of psychosocial interventions such as meditation and long-term cognitive-behavioral therapy on the brain are now indisputable. I like to say that psychosocial interventions are often more biological in their effects than the drugs!

Dr. Aftab: Any words of wisdom for psychiatry trainees and early career psychiatrists?

Dr. Jeste: First of all, I congratulate them for going into psychiatry, which is rapidly advancing and is the field of the future. Looking at new developments, such as in artificial intelligence, I wish I could be a young person again just getting into psychiatry! The role of psychiatrists is also evolving, and psychiatrists will become leaders of multidisciplinary teams. I would advise trainees and early career psychiatrists not to get frustrated by issues such as insurance reimbursements; these obstacles will pass. Society is becoming far more conscious of the importance of mental health to our well-being. So I see a reason to be optimistic. I would also mention that the younger generation has a lot to teach the older generation while at the same time benefitting from the wisdom they have to offer. One of the best things we can promote is intergenerational activity, both within and outside of our profession.

Editor’s note: Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives is a new department in Current Psychiatry in which we interview a prominent psychiatrist about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the field of psychiatry.

In this first Psychiatry Leaders’ Perspectives, Awais Aftab, MD, interviewed Dilip V. Jeste, MD. Dr. Jeste is Senior Associate Dean for Healthy Aging and Senior Care, Estelle and Edgar Levi Memorial Chair in Aging, Director of the Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, University of California San Diego; and Co-Director of the UC San Diego-IBM Center on Artificial Intelligence for Healthy Living. His main areas of research include schizophrenia, neuro­psychiatric interventions, and successful aging. He served as the 139th President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and also is a past president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the West Coast College of Biological Psychiatry, and founding president of International College of Geriatric Psychoneuropharmacology.

Dr. Aftab: The focus of your term as president of the APA was on “positive psychiatry.” You are also one of the world’s foremost experts in this area. How successful have you been in your mission to promote positive psychiatry, and how has your message been received?

Dr. Jeste: Let me start with a little bit of background about why I got into positive psychiatry. As a geriatric psychiatrist, my research work has brought me face to face with the paradox of aging: although physical health declines with age, mental health and well-being improve on average. This is the case not just for individuals in the community but also for individuals with serious mental illnesses. That got me into thinking more and more about the ways in which we can bring positive change in the lives of patients. When I became the president of the APA, one of my main tasks was to finalize and publish the DSM-5, which rightly focuses on the disorders we treat, but it also provided me with an opportunity to highlight the side of psychiatry that focuses on the positive aspects of our own and our patients’ lives, such as wisdom, resilience, meaning, and social connectedness.

As is the case with any new idea, there is a lot of resistance in the beginning and this will always be the case. However, I would say that positive psychiatry has been received very well. We now have an APA Caucus and a World Psychiatric Association Section on positive psychiatry. Our book, Positive Psychiatry, turned out to be one of the best sellers for American Psychiatric Publishing! Every year, there are symposia on positive psychiatry and papers and books from other countries. Overall, the reception has been very promising.

Dr. Aftab: Thank you for this interesting background, Dr. Jeste. Now let me ask you about the current state of psychiatry. What do you see as some of the strengths of our profession?

Dr. Jeste: Psychiatry’s unique strength is our skill in promoting adaptive behavior change, with a focus on positive factors such as resilience, wisdom, optimism, social engagement, improved health, and longevity. If you look at the research literature, the effect sizes of factors such as optimism, resilience, and social engagement are equal to or greater than interventions such as statins, smoking cessation, and exercise. Cardiothoracic surgeons and radiologists can’t help people increase their resilience, optimism, and social engagement, but psychiatrists can. Behavior change is our expertise. When people are suicidal, we give them hope; we help depressed individuals become active, productive, and happy. We treat people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, reduce their psychopathological behaviors, and improve their everyday functioning.

Continue to: Dr. Aftab

Dr. Aftab: Are there ways in which the status quo in psychiatry falls short of the ideal? What are our areas of relative weakness?

Dr. Jeste: Unfortunately, there are a lot of restrictions posed by the current reimbursement system. As a result, psychiatrists spend most of their time prescribing medications in clinical practice. I have nothing against psychopharmacology, but we also need to focus on important aspects of our lives, such as lifestyle, cognitive attitudes, self-care, and social engagement. We need to go beyond symptom reduction. A prominent example is loneliness, which is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality; the treatment for loneliness is not increasing social network, it’s actually changing one’s perception of and ability to enhance appropriate socialization. Who can do that? Psychiatrists! But we don’t do that right now because the health insurance system doesn’t reimburse psychiatrists to do that.

Dr. Aftab: What is your perception of the threats that psychiatry faces? You had to fend off a variety of challenges during your year as APA president, such as issues surrounding revision of DSM-5. How has that experience shaped your assessment?

Dr. Jeste: I was honored to oversee the finalization and publication of DSM-5 as the president of the APA, even though I lost a lot of sleep working on it! What I found was that there was a lot of antagonism in the media, as well as among several advocacy groups, about the DSM. The misperception was that psychiatry and the APA were trying to expand diagnoses so that the drug companies could sell medications to more people, and psychiatry would benefit from this because of its relationship with the industry. That was actually not the case at all. What I tried to do was to understand where these groups were coming from, and to treat them as collaborators and partners, not as enemies. One thing I am particularly proud of is that we established the Summit Group for DSM-5, which brought together perspectives of the various stakeholders, and our communication both within and outside of the APA improved significantly. It’s gratifying to note that much of the controversy in the media died down after DSM-5 was published. The often-critical New York Times wrote that while DSM-5 is far from perfect, it is the best we have today clinically, and I’m very proud of the work we did on it.

Dr. Aftab: What sort of opportunities lie ahead for psychiatry? What do you envision for the future of the field?

Continue to: Dr. Jeste

Dr. Jeste: As a neuroscientist, I’m excited about the new developments in brain science. Our understanding of the neurobiologic basis of mental illnesses is slowly but surely increasing. I’m also very heartened by all the research going on with regard to the prevention of mental illnesses. I think we will be able to reduce the risk of many psychiatric disorders in the future. This is an exciting time for the field, and psychiatry is going to look very different 20 years from now!

Dr. Aftab: Some people think there’s a conflict between a neuroscientific and psychosocial understanding of psychiatry. How do you think the 2 relate to each other?

Dr. Jeste: The reality, I think, is that there is no conflict. Ultimately, the mind is a function of the brain, and the mind operates within a society. Neuroscientists are also realizing the importance of psychosocial aspects, and there is a growing social neuroscience, looking at the neurobiology of things such as loneliness, social isolation, and wisdom. The effects of psychosocial interventions such as meditation and long-term cognitive-behavioral therapy on the brain are now indisputable. I like to say that psychosocial interventions are often more biological in their effects than the drugs!

Dr. Aftab: Any words of wisdom for psychiatry trainees and early career psychiatrists?

Dr. Jeste: First of all, I congratulate them for going into psychiatry, which is rapidly advancing and is the field of the future. Looking at new developments, such as in artificial intelligence, I wish I could be a young person again just getting into psychiatry! The role of psychiatrists is also evolving, and psychiatrists will become leaders of multidisciplinary teams. I would advise trainees and early career psychiatrists not to get frustrated by issues such as insurance reimbursements; these obstacles will pass. Society is becoming far more conscious of the importance of mental health to our well-being. So I see a reason to be optimistic. I would also mention that the younger generation has a lot to teach the older generation while at the same time benefitting from the wisdom they have to offer. One of the best things we can promote is intergenerational activity, both within and outside of our profession.

An international panel of experts has published the first set of recommendations based on current clinical practices and scientific evidence for using ketogenic diet therapies in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Just as in children with epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies can be safe and effective in adults with epilepsy but should only be undertaken with the support of medical professionals trained in their use, the group said.

Novel in adult neurology

Ketogenic diet therapies are high-fat, low-carbohydrate, and adequate-protein diets that induce fat metabolism and ketone production. Despite its use as an effective antiseizure therapy since the 1920s, ketogenic diet therapies remain novel in adult neurology.

Furthermore, while there are established guidelines for ketogenic diet therapies to reduce seizures in children, there were no formal recommendations for adults, until now.

Drawing on the experience of experts at 20 centers using ketogenic diet therapies in more than 2,100 adults with epilepsy in 10 countries, Dr. Cervenka and an international team developed recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in adults.

The panel noted, “with a relatively mild side effect profile and the potential to reduce seizures in nearly 60% of adults with drug-resistant epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies should be part of the repertoire of available options.”

Ketogenic diet therapies are appropriate to offer to adults with seizure types and epilepsy syndromes for which these treatments are known to be effective in children, they said. These include tuberous sclerosis complex, Rett syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, glucose transporter type 1 deficiency syndrome, genetic generalized epilepsies, and focal epilepsies caused by underlying migrational disorders and resistant to antiseizure medication.

However, adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy should be offered surgical evaluation first, given the higher anticipated rate of seizure freedom via this route, the panel said.
 

A focus on compliance

Experts at nearly all of the centers report using two or more ketogenic diet therapies. Ninety percent use the modified Atkins diet, 84% use the classic ketogenic diet, and 63% use the modified ketogenic diet and/or low glycemic index treatment. More than half of the centers (58%) use medium-chain triglyceride oil in combination with another ketogenic diet therapy to boost ketone body production.

The most important factors influencing the choice of ketogenic diet therapy are ease of diet application for the patient (100%) and patient and/or caregiver preference, home setting, and mode of feeding (90% each).

The panel recommended that ketogenic diet therapies be tailored to fit the needs of the individual, taking into account his or her physical and mental characteristics, underlying medical conditions, food preferences, type and amount of support from family and others, level of self-sufficiency, feeding habits, and ease of following the diet.

“Most of the differences between the child and adult recommendations have to do with compliance. Often, it’s more of a challenge for adults than for children,” said Dr. Cervenka.

The panel recommended providing adult patients with recipe ideas, individualized training on the ketogenic diet lifestyle from a dietitian or nutritionist, and guidance for meal planning and preparation before starting the diet. This will provide the greatest likelihood of success, as patients often report difficulties coping with carbohydrate restriction.

“In pediatric practice, positive responders typically remain on a ketogenic diet therapy for 2 years before considering weaning. Ketogenic diet therapy in adults is not time-limited. However, a minimum of 3 months of ketogenic diet therapy is recommended before any judgment of response is made,” the panel advised.

The panel pointed out the absolute metabolic contraindications and cautions related to feeding difficulties, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and digestion remain the same for both children and adults. However, they added that a range of common adult conditions such as hyperlipidemia, heart disease, diabetes, low bone density, and pregnancy “bring additional consideration, caution, and monitoring to ketogenic diet therapy use.”
 

Beyond epilepsy

The guidelines also call for pre–ketogenic diet therapy biochemical studies to screen adults for preexisting abnormalities and establish a reference for comparing follow-up results after 3, 6, and 12 months, and then annually or as needed.

They also noted that metabolic studies such as urine organic acid and serum amino acid levels are generally not needed in adults unless there is a strong clinical suspicion for an underlying metabolic disorder.

Updated genetic evaluation may also be considered in adults with intellectual disability and epilepsy of unknown etiology. Serial bone mineral density scans may be obtained every 5 years.

The guidelines also call for ketone monitoring (blood beta-hydroxybutyrate or urine amino acids) during the early months of ketogenic diet therapy as an objective indication of compliance and biochemical response.

Dietary adjustments should focus on optimizing the treatment response, minimizing side effects, and maximizing sustainability.

Adults on a ketogenic diet therapy should also be advised to take multivitamin and mineral supplements and drink plenty of fluids.

The panel said emerging evidence also supports the use of ketogenic diet therapies in other adult neurologic disorders such as migraine, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

However, the panel said further evidence is needed to guide recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in other neurologic conditions.

The research had no targeted funding. Dr. Cervenka has reported receiving grants from Nutricia, Vitaflo, BrightFocus Foundation, and Army Research Laboratory; honoraria from the American Epilepsy Society, the Neurology Center, Epigenix, LivaNova, and Nutricia; royalties from Demos; and consulting for Nutricia, Glut1 Deficiency Foundation, and Sage Therapeutics. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

An international panel of experts has published the first set of recommendations based on current clinical practices and scientific evidence for using ketogenic diet therapies in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Just as in children with epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies can be safe and effective in adults with epilepsy but should only be undertaken with the support of medical professionals trained in their use, the group said.

Novel in adult neurology

Ketogenic diet therapies are high-fat, low-carbohydrate, and adequate-protein diets that induce fat metabolism and ketone production. Despite its use as an effective antiseizure therapy since the 1920s, ketogenic diet therapies remain novel in adult neurology.

Furthermore, while there are established guidelines for ketogenic diet therapies to reduce seizures in children, there were no formal recommendations for adults, until now.

Drawing on the experience of experts at 20 centers using ketogenic diet therapies in more than 2,100 adults with epilepsy in 10 countries, Dr. Cervenka and an international team developed recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in adults.

The panel noted, “with a relatively mild side effect profile and the potential to reduce seizures in nearly 60% of adults with drug-resistant epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies should be part of the repertoire of available options.”

Ketogenic diet therapies are appropriate to offer to adults with seizure types and epilepsy syndromes for which these treatments are known to be effective in children, they said. These include tuberous sclerosis complex, Rett syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, glucose transporter type 1 deficiency syndrome, genetic generalized epilepsies, and focal epilepsies caused by underlying migrational disorders and resistant to antiseizure medication.

However, adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy should be offered surgical evaluation first, given the higher anticipated rate of seizure freedom via this route, the panel said.
 

A focus on compliance

Experts at nearly all of the centers report using two or more ketogenic diet therapies. Ninety percent use the modified Atkins diet, 84% use the classic ketogenic diet, and 63% use the modified ketogenic diet and/or low glycemic index treatment. More than half of the centers (58%) use medium-chain triglyceride oil in combination with another ketogenic diet therapy to boost ketone body production.

The most important factors influencing the choice of ketogenic diet therapy are ease of diet application for the patient (100%) and patient and/or caregiver preference, home setting, and mode of feeding (90% each).

The panel recommended that ketogenic diet therapies be tailored to fit the needs of the individual, taking into account his or her physical and mental characteristics, underlying medical conditions, food preferences, type and amount of support from family and others, level of self-sufficiency, feeding habits, and ease of following the diet.

“Most of the differences between the child and adult recommendations have to do with compliance. Often, it’s more of a challenge for adults than for children,” said Dr. Cervenka.

The panel recommended providing adult patients with recipe ideas, individualized training on the ketogenic diet lifestyle from a dietitian or nutritionist, and guidance for meal planning and preparation before starting the diet. This will provide the greatest likelihood of success, as patients often report difficulties coping with carbohydrate restriction.

“In pediatric practice, positive responders typically remain on a ketogenic diet therapy for 2 years before considering weaning. Ketogenic diet therapy in adults is not time-limited. However, a minimum of 3 months of ketogenic diet therapy is recommended before any judgment of response is made,” the panel advised.

The panel pointed out the absolute metabolic contraindications and cautions related to feeding difficulties, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and digestion remain the same for both children and adults. However, they added that a range of common adult conditions such as hyperlipidemia, heart disease, diabetes, low bone density, and pregnancy “bring additional consideration, caution, and monitoring to ketogenic diet therapy use.”
 

Beyond epilepsy

The guidelines also call for pre–ketogenic diet therapy biochemical studies to screen adults for preexisting abnormalities and establish a reference for comparing follow-up results after 3, 6, and 12 months, and then annually or as needed.

They also noted that metabolic studies such as urine organic acid and serum amino acid levels are generally not needed in adults unless there is a strong clinical suspicion for an underlying metabolic disorder.

Updated genetic evaluation may also be considered in adults with intellectual disability and epilepsy of unknown etiology. Serial bone mineral density scans may be obtained every 5 years.

The guidelines also call for ketone monitoring (blood beta-hydroxybutyrate or urine amino acids) during the early months of ketogenic diet therapy as an objective indication of compliance and biochemical response.

Dietary adjustments should focus on optimizing the treatment response, minimizing side effects, and maximizing sustainability.

Adults on a ketogenic diet therapy should also be advised to take multivitamin and mineral supplements and drink plenty of fluids.

The panel said emerging evidence also supports the use of ketogenic diet therapies in other adult neurologic disorders such as migraine, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

However, the panel said further evidence is needed to guide recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in other neurologic conditions.

The research had no targeted funding. Dr. Cervenka has reported receiving grants from Nutricia, Vitaflo, BrightFocus Foundation, and Army Research Laboratory; honoraria from the American Epilepsy Society, the Neurology Center, Epigenix, LivaNova, and Nutricia; royalties from Demos; and consulting for Nutricia, Glut1 Deficiency Foundation, and Sage Therapeutics. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

An international panel of experts has published the first set of recommendations based on current clinical practices and scientific evidence for using ketogenic diet therapies in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Just as in children with epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies can be safe and effective in adults with epilepsy but should only be undertaken with the support of medical professionals trained in their use, the group said.

Novel in adult neurology

Ketogenic diet therapies are high-fat, low-carbohydrate, and adequate-protein diets that induce fat metabolism and ketone production. Despite its use as an effective antiseizure therapy since the 1920s, ketogenic diet therapies remain novel in adult neurology.

Furthermore, while there are established guidelines for ketogenic diet therapies to reduce seizures in children, there were no formal recommendations for adults, until now.

Drawing on the experience of experts at 20 centers using ketogenic diet therapies in more than 2,100 adults with epilepsy in 10 countries, Dr. Cervenka and an international team developed recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in adults.

The panel noted, “with a relatively mild side effect profile and the potential to reduce seizures in nearly 60% of adults with drug-resistant epilepsy, ketogenic diet therapies should be part of the repertoire of available options.”

Ketogenic diet therapies are appropriate to offer to adults with seizure types and epilepsy syndromes for which these treatments are known to be effective in children, they said. These include tuberous sclerosis complex, Rett syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, glucose transporter type 1 deficiency syndrome, genetic generalized epilepsies, and focal epilepsies caused by underlying migrational disorders and resistant to antiseizure medication.

However, adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy should be offered surgical evaluation first, given the higher anticipated rate of seizure freedom via this route, the panel said.
 

A focus on compliance

Experts at nearly all of the centers report using two or more ketogenic diet therapies. Ninety percent use the modified Atkins diet, 84% use the classic ketogenic diet, and 63% use the modified ketogenic diet and/or low glycemic index treatment. More than half of the centers (58%) use medium-chain triglyceride oil in combination with another ketogenic diet therapy to boost ketone body production.

The most important factors influencing the choice of ketogenic diet therapy are ease of diet application for the patient (100%) and patient and/or caregiver preference, home setting, and mode of feeding (90% each).

The panel recommended that ketogenic diet therapies be tailored to fit the needs of the individual, taking into account his or her physical and mental characteristics, underlying medical conditions, food preferences, type and amount of support from family and others, level of self-sufficiency, feeding habits, and ease of following the diet.

“Most of the differences between the child and adult recommendations have to do with compliance. Often, it’s more of a challenge for adults than for children,” said Dr. Cervenka.

The panel recommended providing adult patients with recipe ideas, individualized training on the ketogenic diet lifestyle from a dietitian or nutritionist, and guidance for meal planning and preparation before starting the diet. This will provide the greatest likelihood of success, as patients often report difficulties coping with carbohydrate restriction.

“In pediatric practice, positive responders typically remain on a ketogenic diet therapy for 2 years before considering weaning. Ketogenic diet therapy in adults is not time-limited. However, a minimum of 3 months of ketogenic diet therapy is recommended before any judgment of response is made,” the panel advised.

The panel pointed out the absolute metabolic contraindications and cautions related to feeding difficulties, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and digestion remain the same for both children and adults. However, they added that a range of common adult conditions such as hyperlipidemia, heart disease, diabetes, low bone density, and pregnancy “bring additional consideration, caution, and monitoring to ketogenic diet therapy use.”
 

Beyond epilepsy

The guidelines also call for pre–ketogenic diet therapy biochemical studies to screen adults for preexisting abnormalities and establish a reference for comparing follow-up results after 3, 6, and 12 months, and then annually or as needed.

They also noted that metabolic studies such as urine organic acid and serum amino acid levels are generally not needed in adults unless there is a strong clinical suspicion for an underlying metabolic disorder.

Updated genetic evaluation may also be considered in adults with intellectual disability and epilepsy of unknown etiology. Serial bone mineral density scans may be obtained every 5 years.

The guidelines also call for ketone monitoring (blood beta-hydroxybutyrate or urine amino acids) during the early months of ketogenic diet therapy as an objective indication of compliance and biochemical response.

Dietary adjustments should focus on optimizing the treatment response, minimizing side effects, and maximizing sustainability.

Adults on a ketogenic diet therapy should also be advised to take multivitamin and mineral supplements and drink plenty of fluids.

The panel said emerging evidence also supports the use of ketogenic diet therapies in other adult neurologic disorders such as migraine, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

However, the panel said further evidence is needed to guide recommendations on use of ketogenic diet therapies in other neurologic conditions.

The research had no targeted funding. Dr. Cervenka has reported receiving grants from Nutricia, Vitaflo, BrightFocus Foundation, and Army Research Laboratory; honoraria from the American Epilepsy Society, the Neurology Center, Epigenix, LivaNova, and Nutricia; royalties from Demos; and consulting for Nutricia, Glut1 Deficiency Foundation, and Sage Therapeutics. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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