Vaccines

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis who began treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate, the rate of serious infections at 6 months was low, with an incidence ranging between 14.9 and 25.6 per 1,000 person-years.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be the largest cohort study of its kind to estimate the 6-month rate of infections among children with psoriasis who started treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate.

“Clinical trials have demonstrated high efficacy of new immunomodulatory agents in treating children with psoriasis,” lead author Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology in the departments of medicine and dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the article, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “However, the risk of infections in clinical practice has not been fully characterized by comparing these medications against each other in pairwise comparisons.”

Drawing from two large U.S. insurance claims databases, the researchers identified 2,338 patients aged 17 years and younger who were receiving treatment with a topical medication for psoriasis and started new treatment with ustekinumab, etanercept, or methotrexate. They stratified their analysis by the time before pediatric labeling (2009-2015) and after pediatric approval (2016-2021), and their follow-up of patients started 1 day after initiating treatment and ended at 6 months.

Of the 2,338 patients, 1,368 (58%) were girls. From 2009 through 2021, 379 patients began treatment with ustekinumab, 779 patients began treatment with etanercept, and 1,180 patients began treatment with methotrexate. The propensity score–adjusted incidence rate of serious infection was 18.4 per 1,000 person-years (3 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 25.6 per 1,000 person-years (9 events) for those who used etanercept, and 14.9 per 1,000 person-years (8 events) for those who used methotrexate. The adjusted rate of outpatient infections was 254.9 per 1,000 person-years (39 events) for those who used ustekinumab, 435.7 per 1,000 person-years (139 events) for those who used etanercept, and 433.6 per 1,000 person-years (209 events) for those who used methotrexate. Meanwhile, the adjusted rate ratio of outpatient infections was 0.58 for ustekinumab vs. etanercept, 0.66 for ustekinumab vs. methotrexate, and 0.95 for etanercept vs. methotrexate. The researchers found that ratios were similar during the off-label use era and after pediatric labeling.

Anna L. Grossberg, MD, director of pediatric dermatology at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, Baltimore, who was asked to comment on the work, told this news organization that the data on outpatient infections in ustekinumab users “demonstrated that they may have a decreased risk of infection compared to pediatric psoriasis patients treated with methotrexate or the TNF-alpha inhibitor etanercept. This is previously unreported and reflects my personal experience with this medication in my own pediatric psoriasis patients.” She added the study’s overall findings lend further support to the safety of biologic medications and nonbiologic systemic immunomodulatory treatments for management of psoriasis. “This study will help guide pediatric dermatologists in counseling patients and their families about these risks [of infection], and in general providing reassurance that these risks appear to be quite low,” Dr. Grossberg said. “In particular, ustekinumab, a newer biologic medication that was recently FDA-approved for children 6 years and older for pediatric psoriasis, was not associated with higher infection rates than the other agents analyzed in this study, and in fact appears to carry a reduced risk compared to both etanercept and methotrexate.”

She noted certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on insurance claims data, “which can be limiting because information on possible confounding variables may not be known,” she said. “For example, the authors point out that environmental and behavioral risk factors for serious infection could not be evaluated or adjusted for, nor could the severity of the patients’ psoriasis. Additionally, this study only reported on outpatient infections that resulted in an antibiotic or other medications being prescribed and filled. It therefore may have missed children who presented with certain viral infections (examples could include the common cold and uncomplicated ear infections), which often will not require a prescription medication. Furthermore, it would fail to capture those who may have been seen for an infection but failed to fill the intended prescription.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from AbbVie and UCB to Brigham and Women’s Hospital unrelated to the topic of this study and outside the submitted work. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Grossberg reported having no financial disclosures.

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2023.

In a policy statement published online in the journal Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations do not include major changes from those released in 2022 by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In one small shift, COVID-19 is now addressed in the main text instead of being relegated to the notes section.

“And a new vaccine – Priorix [GlaxoSmithKline] – has been added for MMR [measles, mumps, rubella], so now there are two available,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, told this news organization. “There’s also a second pneumococcal conjugate vaccine listed, PCV15, and this and PCV13 can essentially be used interchangeably.”

Minor updates to the schedule, reflected on the cover page, relate to vaccines for COVID-19, dengue fever, and pneumococcal disease, added Dr. O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

The committee also changed layouts to improve the usability of the schedule. Updated annually, the guidance provides a table on recommended pediatric immunizations from birth to age 18 years, and catch-up recommendations for children aged 4 months to 18 years who start their vaccinations late or are more than 1 month behind the recommended age for vaccine administration.

“We hope this annual update will encourage clinicians to make sure all their patients are up to date on their routine vaccinations,” Dr. O’Leary said. “It’s an opportunity to develop strategies to improve vaccination rates.”

The 2023 schedule follows news from the CDC that kindergarten vaccination rates declined during the 2021-2022 school year. Only 93% of kindergarteners obtained full vaccinations, representing a drop of 1 percentage point from the year before and 2 percentage points from the 2019-2020 school year.

The dip in coverage has been attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. AAP advises health care professionals to urge families to make sure their child’s vaccines are current.

Among other additions:
 

In Table 1

• MMR: Second vaccine added (Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
• Pneumococcal disease: second conjugate vaccine, PCV15, added (Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme).
• COVID-19: New row added.
• Dengue: Text changed from “Seropositive in endemic areas only” to “Seropositive in endemic dengue areas.”
• Inactivated polio vaccine: “See Notes” added to the column for children aged 18 years.

In Table 2

• PCV: Dose 3 to dose 4 interval revised to align with ACIP’s recommendation for dose 4. This dose is necessary only for children ages 12-59 months regardless of risk, or age 60-71 months with any risk who received three doses before age 12 months.

A parent-friendly vaccine schedule for children and adolescents is available on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccines are essential for the health of our whole society, including children and adolescents,” Dr. O’Leary said in a press release from AAP. “These schedules provide a road map [that] parents and pediatricians can follow to help children get the vaccines they need so their immune systems will be ready to recognize and resist diseases.”

As previously, the 2023 schedule was adjusted to ensure consistency between the formats of the childhood/adolescent and adult immunization guidance. A meeting of stakeholder organizations in October 2022 harmonized the two formats.

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

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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