COVID-19 Updates

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to give the green light to COVID-19 vaccination for children who are under age 12, it is expected that approval will be granted. In anticipation of the FDA’s go-ahead, which is expected in the coming weeks, a new “rapid expert consultation” has identified “actionable guidance” that state and local decision-makers can use to communicate with the public. The goal is to build confidence in and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for parents who are contemplating vaccinating their children.

They note that key factors in decision-making concern vaccine side effects, the efficacy of the vaccine in children, availability of research in their child’s age group, research conducted by the parents themselves, and recommendations by the child’s health care provider.

“One of the reasons that the COVID vaccine only became available for children 12 and over months after it was approved for adults is that it takes time and many, many trial participants who are closely monitored before the vaccine ever reaches the general public,” said Nusheen Ameenuddin, MD, MPH, MPA, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We continue to talk to parents about the fact that the vaccines have been very safe and effective in this group, and even though people are concerned about side effects, they are much milder and less frequent than the effects of the disease itself.”

Dr. Ameenuddin noted that the lack of data in this age group can be concerning for parents. “It’s not like other vaccines which have been available for a long time, and the clinical trial data are still limited for this age group,” she said. “But I think the main point that practitioners need to emphasize is that, even though the vaccine is new, the science for this vaccine has been around for about a decade.”

The unique circumstances of a pandemic, she pointed out, allowed for important information about effectiveness, safety, and side effects to be obtained more quickly from clinical trial data.

“We have really good evidence for kids 12 and over, about safety and effectiveness, and even though children are not small adults and have their own unique physiology, this has provided a good starting point to suggest that kids slightly younger will also respond well to the vaccines,” said Dr. Ameenuddin, who is also chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. “As we learn more, we can start gathering more information about even younger kids to ensure that the right dosage and spacing of vaccines can provide maximum vaccine effectiveness and protection from disease.”

The guidance was published Oct. 13 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The rapid expert consultation was produced through the Societal Experts Action Network, an activity of the National Academies that is sponsored by the NASEM and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The goal of SEAN is to connect researchers in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences with decision-makers to respond to policy questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their expert consultation, the authors emphasize that vaccination is critical for decreasing transmission and controlling infection, as well as limiting the emergence of future serious variants. As of Oct. 3, 2021, about 65% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the rate has begun to lag in many areas of the country. There are a variety of reasons for vaccine hesitancy, they note, including perception of low risks from COVID-19 or of high risks from COVID-19 vaccines, exposure to media, political agendas, lack of confidence in science, and distrust of the medical establishment. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use for individuals 12 years of age and older and fully approved for those aged 16 and older, while the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for emergency use for those 18 years of age and older.

Many children between the ages of 12 and 17 have not been vaccinated, and the major concerns reported by parents include not knowing enough about the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (88%), concerns about children experiencing serious side effects (79%), and concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine might negatively affect future fertility (73%).

The National Academies have previously released two other “rapid expert consultations” which have addressed building vaccine confidence, and both reports provide key strategies for communicating information about COVID-19 vaccines. In this paper, the focus was on communicating with parents to gain confidence in the vaccine and address concerns.
 

Key points

The key strategies highlighted for communicating with parents include the following:

• Emphasizing safety and efficacy: Parents should be informed about the ongoing research and clinical trials that will answer more questions about the vaccine and that there is continued monitoring for any safety risks. Pointing to the safety data from the clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds, and the lack of serious adverse events from the vaccine in this age group may help alleviate concerns.
• CalibriEncouraging parents to talk with a primary care provider: Research shows that parents trust family physicians and other health care practitioners to provide them with accurate information about vaccines. Local, state, and national leaders can provide messaging templates and other resources to health care professionals who are engaged in these conversations.
• Leveraging social networks to influence parents’ vaccination decisions: Parents are influenced by their social network connections. It is important to engage these networks, especially with members of their community who are considered trustworthy and influential. Social networks may also be very diverse, and include family members, friends, coworkers, social media, and members of their religious community.

While the guidance states that different groups of parents will require different messaging, they suggest that communication can begin with a focus on the things that vaccination can accomplish. In addition to preventing infection with COVID-19, it will allow children to attend school in person and participate in extracurricular activities such as sports, without risking their health. “One thing I’ve learned over several years of working with vaccine-hesitant parents is that you have to tailor each approach to the individual,” said Dr. Ameenuddin. “Different people have different concerns, and first and foremost, it’s important to listen.”

For some parents, emphasizing that the more people that can be vaccinated and the sooner it can be done, the sooner everyone can return to a normal life is a good approach, she added. “I think it’s important to emphasize both the individual and communal benefits of vaccines, but that won’t necessarily reach every person with concerns. I think it’s important to find out what is most important to individuals and work from there to find a way to connect with that family to encourage vaccination.”

Dr. Ameenuddin has no disclosures.

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

A physician assistant who runs a pediatric clinic in Washington State says he’ll fight against a license suspension over prescribing ivermectin as a cure for COVID, among other allegations.

The suspension stemmed from allegations against Scott C. Miller, PA-C, by at least six COVID patients, including some who weren’t his patients or whom he never examined and a few who later died from the virus, according to the Washington Medical Commission.

“Miller’s treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care,” the suspension report states. “Miller began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative for COVID-19, and prescribing it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

Mr. Miller has until early November to respond to the allegations. On his clinic’s website, Mr. Miller stated, “In response to the charges, I want to reassure all of you that the initial attacks against me have been brought on by a small handful of people that have no ties to our medical practice, and by pharmacies and hospitals that have a zero tolerance policy on family members asking that I help them advocate for loved ones that have been admitted and written off in our current system of dismissiveness and neglect.”

Mr. Miller also expressed gratitude for the support he has received recently. A GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Mr. Miller’s legal fund had raised more than $59,000 at press time. His GoFundMe page had been shared 2,400 times. He has more than 550 followers and more than 400 donors.

“I don’t know that I have the words to adequately describe the deep sense of love and connection I have received from you, the families I serve, and those that have reached out to me in this deeply challenging time,” he wrote on the clinic website.

Mr. Miller has spoken publicly about his anti-mask views and his support for ivermectin, according to the commission report. As part of the suspension, he was charged with making “misleading representations regarding the efficacy of non-FDA approved treatment and mask use.”

In one case that was cited in the report, a 39-year-old patient contacted the pediatric clinic, and Mr. Miller spoke with the patient by phone. The patient reported that he had tested positive for COVID. Mr. Miller advised the patient to take supplements, including vitamin D and C, zinc, and melatonin, and he prescribed ivermectin, dexamethasone, and azithromycin. He did not perform an exam, verify the information that the patient had provided, advise the patient regarding interactions, or order follow-up testing, the report states.

Other charges against Mr. Miller include harassing hospital staff by making threatening statements about hospitals and doctors who treat COVID-19 patients and misrepresenting his original 2013 license application. He denied on the application that he was being investigated by another licensing board. At the time, the California Physician Assistant Board was investigating him for providing medical care and prescribing without a supervising doctor’s authorization and without conducting physical exams, among other charges.

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

For patients with refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 infections, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be the treatment of last resort.

But for reasons that aren’t clear, in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at a major teaching hospital, the mortality rate of patients on ECMO for COVID-induced ARDS was significantly higher than it was during the first wave, despite changes in drug therapy and clinical management, reported Rohit Reddy, BS, a second-year medical student, and colleagues at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

During the first wave, from April to September 2020, the survival rate of patients while on ECMO in their ICUs was 67%. In contrast, for patients treated during the second wave, from November 2020 to March 2021, the ECMO survival rate was 31% (P = .003).

The 30-day survival rates were also higher in the first wave compared with the second, at 54% versus 31%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“More research is required to develop stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria and to improve pre-ECMO management in order to improve outcomes,” Mr. Reddy said in a narrated poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.
 

ARDS severity higher

ARDS is a major complication of COVID-19 infections, and there is evidence to suggest that COVID-associated ARDS is more severe than ARDS caused by other causes, the investigators noted.

“ECMO, which has been used as a rescue therapy in prior viral outbreaks, has been used to support certain patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19, but evidence for its efficacy is limited. Respiratory failure remained a highly concerning complication in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear how the evolution of the disease and pharmacologic utility has affected the clinical utility of ECMO,” Mr. Reddy said.

To see whether changes in disease course or in treatment could explain changes in outcomes for patients with COVID-related ARDS, the investigators compared characteristics and outcomes for patients treated in the first versus second waves of the pandemic. Their study did not include data from patients infected with the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which became the predominant viral strain later in 2021.

The study included data on 28 patients treated during the first wave, and 13 during the second. The sample included 28 men and 13 women with a mean age of 51 years.

All patients had venovenous ECMO, with cannulation in the femoral or internal jugular veins; some patients received ECMO via a single double-lumen cannula.

There were no significant differences between the two time periods in patient comorbidities prior to initiation of ECMO.

Patients in the second wave were significantly more likely to receive steroids (54% vs. 100%; P = .003) and remdesivir (39% vs. 85%; P = .007). Prone positioning before ECMO was also significantly more frequent in the second wave (11% vs. 85%; P < .001).

Patients in the second wave stayed on ECMO longer – median 20 days versus 14 days for first-wave patients – but as noted before, ECMO mortality rates were significantly higher during the second wave. During the first wave, 33% of patients died while on ECMO, compared with 69% in the second wave (P = .03). Respective 30-day mortality rates were 46% versus 69% (ns).

Rates of complications during ECMO were generally comparable between the groups, including acute renal failure (39% in the first wave vs 38% in the second), sepsis (32% vs. 23%), bacterial pneumonia (11% vs. 8%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (21% vs. 15%). However, significantly more patients in the second wave had cerebral vascular accidents (4% vs. 23%; P = .050).

Senior author Hitoshi Hirose, MD, PhD, professor of surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, said in an interview that the difference in outcomes was likely caused by changes in pre-ECMO therapy between the first and second waves.

“Our study showed the incidence of sepsis had a large impact on the patient outcomes,” he wrote. “We speculate that sepsis was attributed to use of immune modulation therapy. The prevention of the sepsis would be key to improve survival of ECMO for COVID 19.”

“It’s possible that the explanation for this is that patients in the second wave were sicker in a way that wasn’t adequately measured in the first wave,” CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, said in an interview.

The differences may also have been attributable to changes in virulence, or to clinical decisions to put sicker patients on ECMO, he said.

Casey Cable, MD, MSc, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center in Richmond, also speculated in an interview that second-wave patients may have been sicker.

“One interesting piece of this story is that we now know a lot more – we know about the use of steroids plus or minus remdesivir and proning, and patients received a large majority of those treatments but still got put on ECMO,” she said. “I wonder if there is a subset of really sick patients, and no matter what we treat with – steroids, proning – whatever we do they’re just not going to do well.”

Both Dr. Carroll and Dr. Cable emphasized the importance of ECMO as a rescue therapy for patients with severe, refractory ARDS associated with COVID-19 or other diseases.

Neither Dr. Carroll nor Dr. Cable were involved in the study.

No study funding was reported. Mr. Reddy, Dr. Hirose, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 infections, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be the treatment of last resort.

But for reasons that aren’t clear, in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at a major teaching hospital, the mortality rate of patients on ECMO for COVID-induced ARDS was significantly higher than it was during the first wave, despite changes in drug therapy and clinical management, reported Rohit Reddy, BS, a second-year medical student, and colleagues at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

During the first wave, from April to September 2020, the survival rate of patients while on ECMO in their ICUs was 67%. In contrast, for patients treated during the second wave, from November 2020 to March 2021, the ECMO survival rate was 31% (P = .003).

The 30-day survival rates were also higher in the first wave compared with the second, at 54% versus 31%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“More research is required to develop stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria and to improve pre-ECMO management in order to improve outcomes,” Mr. Reddy said in a narrated poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.
 

ARDS severity higher

ARDS is a major complication of COVID-19 infections, and there is evidence to suggest that COVID-associated ARDS is more severe than ARDS caused by other causes, the investigators noted.

“ECMO, which has been used as a rescue therapy in prior viral outbreaks, has been used to support certain patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19, but evidence for its efficacy is limited. Respiratory failure remained a highly concerning complication in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear how the evolution of the disease and pharmacologic utility has affected the clinical utility of ECMO,” Mr. Reddy said.

To see whether changes in disease course or in treatment could explain changes in outcomes for patients with COVID-related ARDS, the investigators compared characteristics and outcomes for patients treated in the first versus second waves of the pandemic. Their study did not include data from patients infected with the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which became the predominant viral strain later in 2021.

The study included data on 28 patients treated during the first wave, and 13 during the second. The sample included 28 men and 13 women with a mean age of 51 years.

All patients had venovenous ECMO, with cannulation in the femoral or internal jugular veins; some patients received ECMO via a single double-lumen cannula.

There were no significant differences between the two time periods in patient comorbidities prior to initiation of ECMO.

Patients in the second wave were significantly more likely to receive steroids (54% vs. 100%; P = .003) and remdesivir (39% vs. 85%; P = .007). Prone positioning before ECMO was also significantly more frequent in the second wave (11% vs. 85%; P < .001).

Patients in the second wave stayed on ECMO longer – median 20 days versus 14 days for first-wave patients – but as noted before, ECMO mortality rates were significantly higher during the second wave. During the first wave, 33% of patients died while on ECMO, compared with 69% in the second wave (P = .03). Respective 30-day mortality rates were 46% versus 69% (ns).

Rates of complications during ECMO were generally comparable between the groups, including acute renal failure (39% in the first wave vs 38% in the second), sepsis (32% vs. 23%), bacterial pneumonia (11% vs. 8%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (21% vs. 15%). However, significantly more patients in the second wave had cerebral vascular accidents (4% vs. 23%; P = .050).

Senior author Hitoshi Hirose, MD, PhD, professor of surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, said in an interview that the difference in outcomes was likely caused by changes in pre-ECMO therapy between the first and second waves.

“Our study showed the incidence of sepsis had a large impact on the patient outcomes,” he wrote. “We speculate that sepsis was attributed to use of immune modulation therapy. The prevention of the sepsis would be key to improve survival of ECMO for COVID 19.”

“It’s possible that the explanation for this is that patients in the second wave were sicker in a way that wasn’t adequately measured in the first wave,” CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, said in an interview.

The differences may also have been attributable to changes in virulence, or to clinical decisions to put sicker patients on ECMO, he said.

Casey Cable, MD, MSc, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center in Richmond, also speculated in an interview that second-wave patients may have been sicker.

“One interesting piece of this story is that we now know a lot more – we know about the use of steroids plus or minus remdesivir and proning, and patients received a large majority of those treatments but still got put on ECMO,” she said. “I wonder if there is a subset of really sick patients, and no matter what we treat with – steroids, proning – whatever we do they’re just not going to do well.”

Both Dr. Carroll and Dr. Cable emphasized the importance of ECMO as a rescue therapy for patients with severe, refractory ARDS associated with COVID-19 or other diseases.

Neither Dr. Carroll nor Dr. Cable were involved in the study.

No study funding was reported. Mr. Reddy, Dr. Hirose, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 infections, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be the treatment of last resort.

But for reasons that aren’t clear, in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at a major teaching hospital, the mortality rate of patients on ECMO for COVID-induced ARDS was significantly higher than it was during the first wave, despite changes in drug therapy and clinical management, reported Rohit Reddy, BS, a second-year medical student, and colleagues at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

During the first wave, from April to September 2020, the survival rate of patients while on ECMO in their ICUs was 67%. In contrast, for patients treated during the second wave, from November 2020 to March 2021, the ECMO survival rate was 31% (P = .003).

The 30-day survival rates were also higher in the first wave compared with the second, at 54% versus 31%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

“More research is required to develop stricter inclusion/exclusion criteria and to improve pre-ECMO management in order to improve outcomes,” Mr. Reddy said in a narrated poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.
 

ARDS severity higher

ARDS is a major complication of COVID-19 infections, and there is evidence to suggest that COVID-associated ARDS is more severe than ARDS caused by other causes, the investigators noted.

“ECMO, which has been used as a rescue therapy in prior viral outbreaks, has been used to support certain patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19, but evidence for its efficacy is limited. Respiratory failure remained a highly concerning complication in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear how the evolution of the disease and pharmacologic utility has affected the clinical utility of ECMO,” Mr. Reddy said.

To see whether changes in disease course or in treatment could explain changes in outcomes for patients with COVID-related ARDS, the investigators compared characteristics and outcomes for patients treated in the first versus second waves of the pandemic. Their study did not include data from patients infected with the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which became the predominant viral strain later in 2021.

The study included data on 28 patients treated during the first wave, and 13 during the second. The sample included 28 men and 13 women with a mean age of 51 years.

All patients had venovenous ECMO, with cannulation in the femoral or internal jugular veins; some patients received ECMO via a single double-lumen cannula.

There were no significant differences between the two time periods in patient comorbidities prior to initiation of ECMO.

Patients in the second wave were significantly more likely to receive steroids (54% vs. 100%; P = .003) and remdesivir (39% vs. 85%; P = .007). Prone positioning before ECMO was also significantly more frequent in the second wave (11% vs. 85%; P < .001).

Patients in the second wave stayed on ECMO longer – median 20 days versus 14 days for first-wave patients – but as noted before, ECMO mortality rates were significantly higher during the second wave. During the first wave, 33% of patients died while on ECMO, compared with 69% in the second wave (P = .03). Respective 30-day mortality rates were 46% versus 69% (ns).

Rates of complications during ECMO were generally comparable between the groups, including acute renal failure (39% in the first wave vs 38% in the second), sepsis (32% vs. 23%), bacterial pneumonia (11% vs. 8%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (21% vs. 15%). However, significantly more patients in the second wave had cerebral vascular accidents (4% vs. 23%; P = .050).

Senior author Hitoshi Hirose, MD, PhD, professor of surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, said in an interview that the difference in outcomes was likely caused by changes in pre-ECMO therapy between the first and second waves.

“Our study showed the incidence of sepsis had a large impact on the patient outcomes,” he wrote. “We speculate that sepsis was attributed to use of immune modulation therapy. The prevention of the sepsis would be key to improve survival of ECMO for COVID 19.”

“It’s possible that the explanation for this is that patients in the second wave were sicker in a way that wasn’t adequately measured in the first wave,” CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, said in an interview.

The differences may also have been attributable to changes in virulence, or to clinical decisions to put sicker patients on ECMO, he said.

Casey Cable, MD, MSc, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center in Richmond, also speculated in an interview that second-wave patients may have been sicker.

“One interesting piece of this story is that we now know a lot more – we know about the use of steroids plus or minus remdesivir and proning, and patients received a large majority of those treatments but still got put on ECMO,” she said. “I wonder if there is a subset of really sick patients, and no matter what we treat with – steroids, proning – whatever we do they’re just not going to do well.”

Both Dr. Carroll and Dr. Cable emphasized the importance of ECMO as a rescue therapy for patients with severe, refractory ARDS associated with COVID-19 or other diseases.

Neither Dr. Carroll nor Dr. Cable were involved in the study.

No study funding was reported. Mr. Reddy, Dr. Hirose, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

States can preorder COVID-19 vaccine doses for younger children this week as they begin to set up vaccination campaigns for ages 5-11.

Vaccine advisory groups for the FDA and CDC are scheduled to discuss and approve the Pfizer shot for kids in the next three weeks. To help states and cities prepare for the rollout, the CDC issued guidance on how to set up expanded vaccination programs.

Immunization program managers can begin ordering doses on Wednesday, according to the guidance. The vials won’t be delivered until the FDA and CDC authorize the shot, but registering now will help federal officials ship doses quickly once they’re available.

Pharmacies in every state will be able to give COVID-19 shots to children, but they can only use doses that are prepared specifically for children. Ages 5-11 will need a 10-microgram dose, which is one-third of the dose administered to ages 12 and older. The guidance warns that doctors should not try to split up or fraction the adult doses.

The CDC guidance also recommends that pediatricians and family practice doctors should serve as primary places to give shots to kids. The document mentions other options, such as vaccination clinics at schools, but doesn’t endorse them as the first choice for vaccinating kids.

The CDC hasn’t yet addressed questions around whether kids should be required to get vaccinated to attend school. The decision will likely be left to state and city officials.

Federal health officials aren’t yet sure how many parents and guardians will seek shots for their younger kids right away, the AP reported. Demand may be high at first for some families, but it may not be as high as when shots first became available for adults, Marcus Plescia, MD, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told The Associated Press.

“We’re going to have potentially a very busy, and perhaps modestly chaotic time,” he said.

When vaccines were first authorized for adults, hospitals and pharmacies received priority for ordering shots. Some doctors felt left out. This time, however, the CDC has said that pediatricians will receive higher priority and be able to receive shipments quickly.

As the vaccine rollout begins, health officials should consider logistical concerns to address racial and economic disparities for younger kids, Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the CDC, told the AP.

If parents or guardians can’t leave work to take their kids to a pharmacy or doctor’s office, for instance, their kids may not receive a shot quickly – or at all.

“It’s really important that we recognize the barriers to vaccinations,” he said.

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

States can preorder COVID-19 vaccine doses for younger children this week as they begin to set up vaccination campaigns for ages 5-11.

Vaccine advisory groups for the FDA and CDC are scheduled to discuss and approve the Pfizer shot for kids in the next three weeks. To help states and cities prepare for the rollout, the CDC issued guidance on how to set up expanded vaccination programs.

Immunization program managers can begin ordering doses on Wednesday, according to the guidance. The vials won’t be delivered until the FDA and CDC authorize the shot, but registering now will help federal officials ship doses quickly once they’re available.

Pharmacies in every state will be able to give COVID-19 shots to children, but they can only use doses that are prepared specifically for children. Ages 5-11 will need a 10-microgram dose, which is one-third of the dose administered to ages 12 and older. The guidance warns that doctors should not try to split up or fraction the adult doses.

The CDC guidance also recommends that pediatricians and family practice doctors should serve as primary places to give shots to kids. The document mentions other options, such as vaccination clinics at schools, but doesn’t endorse them as the first choice for vaccinating kids.

The CDC hasn’t yet addressed questions around whether kids should be required to get vaccinated to attend school. The decision will likely be left to state and city officials.

Federal health officials aren’t yet sure how many parents and guardians will seek shots for their younger kids right away, the AP reported. Demand may be high at first for some families, but it may not be as high as when shots first became available for adults, Marcus Plescia, MD, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told The Associated Press.

“We’re going to have potentially a very busy, and perhaps modestly chaotic time,” he said.

When vaccines were first authorized for adults, hospitals and pharmacies received priority for ordering shots. Some doctors felt left out. This time, however, the CDC has said that pediatricians will receive higher priority and be able to receive shipments quickly.

As the vaccine rollout begins, health officials should consider logistical concerns to address racial and economic disparities for younger kids, Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the CDC, told the AP.

If parents or guardians can’t leave work to take their kids to a pharmacy or doctor’s office, for instance, their kids may not receive a shot quickly – or at all.

“It’s really important that we recognize the barriers to vaccinations,” he said.

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

States can preorder COVID-19 vaccine doses for younger children this week as they begin to set up vaccination campaigns for ages 5-11.

Vaccine advisory groups for the FDA and CDC are scheduled to discuss and approve the Pfizer shot for kids in the next three weeks. To help states and cities prepare for the rollout, the CDC issued guidance on how to set up expanded vaccination programs.

Immunization program managers can begin ordering doses on Wednesday, according to the guidance. The vials won’t be delivered until the FDA and CDC authorize the shot, but registering now will help federal officials ship doses quickly once they’re available.

Pharmacies in every state will be able to give COVID-19 shots to children, but they can only use doses that are prepared specifically for children. Ages 5-11 will need a 10-microgram dose, which is one-third of the dose administered to ages 12 and older. The guidance warns that doctors should not try to split up or fraction the adult doses.

The CDC guidance also recommends that pediatricians and family practice doctors should serve as primary places to give shots to kids. The document mentions other options, such as vaccination clinics at schools, but doesn’t endorse them as the first choice for vaccinating kids.

The CDC hasn’t yet addressed questions around whether kids should be required to get vaccinated to attend school. The decision will likely be left to state and city officials.

Federal health officials aren’t yet sure how many parents and guardians will seek shots for their younger kids right away, the AP reported. Demand may be high at first for some families, but it may not be as high as when shots first became available for adults, Marcus Plescia, MD, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told The Associated Press.

“We’re going to have potentially a very busy, and perhaps modestly chaotic time,” he said.

When vaccines were first authorized for adults, hospitals and pharmacies received priority for ordering shots. Some doctors felt left out. This time, however, the CDC has said that pediatricians will receive higher priority and be able to receive shipments quickly.

As the vaccine rollout begins, health officials should consider logistical concerns to address racial and economic disparities for younger kids, Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the CDC, told the AP.

If parents or guardians can’t leave work to take their kids to a pharmacy or doctor’s office, for instance, their kids may not receive a shot quickly – or at all.

“It’s really important that we recognize the barriers to vaccinations,” he said.

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

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Many health care facilities have instituted universal masking policies for health care workers while also systematically testing any symptomatic health care workers. There is a paucity of data examining the effectiveness of universal masking policies in reducing COVID positivity among health care workers.

This study is limited by the retrospective cohort, nonrandomized design. Potential confounders include other infection-control measures such as limiting elective procedures, social distancing, and increasing masking in the general population. It is also unclear that a symptomatic testing database is generalizable to the asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers.

Bottom line: Universal masking policy for health care workers appears to decrease the COVID-positive test rates among symptomatic health care workers.

Citation: Wang X et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020;324(7):703-4.

Dr. Ouyang is a hospitalist and chief of the hospitalist section at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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