Vaccines

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Niket Sonpal, MD, thought he’d heard most of the myths about wearing masks during the pandemic, but the recent claim from a patient was a new one for the New York City gastroenterologist.

iStock/Getty Images Plus/skynesher

The patient refused to wear a mask because she heard inhaling bad breath through a mask could be toxic. The woman said the rumor was circulating on Facebook. Sonpal calmly explained that breathing your own breath is not going to cause health problems, he said.

“There’s a lot of controversy on masks,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s really just a lack of education and buy-in. Social media is the primary source of all this misinformation. These kinds of over-the-top hyperbole has basically led to a disbelief that masks are effective. The disbelief is hard to break up.”

As mask requirements have tightened amid the ongoing pandemic, debates about face coverings have emerged front and center, with a growing number of people opposing mask usage. So-called antimaskers dispute the benefits of wearing masks and many contend that face coverings decrease oxygen flow and can lead to illness. Sentiment against masks have led to protests nationwide, ignited public conflicts in some areas, and even generated lawsuits over mask mandates.

The issue presents an ongoing challenge for physicians as they strive to educate patients about the significance of masking against the flood of antimask messages on social media and beyond. Opposition to masks is particularly frustrating for health professionals who have witnessed patients, family, or friends become ill or die from the virus. Refusing to mask and failing to social distance have been linked to the rapid spread of the coronavirus and subsequent deaths.

“I have had colleagues pass away, and it’s extremely disheartening and frustrating to see science so easily disregarded,” Sonpal said. “Masks save lives and protect people and not wearing them is simply a lack of respect, not just for your fellow colleagues, but for a member of your species.”

Michael Rebresh, who helped create the antimask group Million Unmasked Patriots, says his group’s objections to masks are rational and reasonable. The group, which has more than 8,000 members, formed in response to guidance by Illinois state officials that children would only be allowed to return to school wearing a mask.

“Our objections are to the fact that masks on children in school have a greater propensity to make children sick from breathing in bacteria that forms on the inner layer of a mask worn for hours on end,” Rebresh said. “We have an objection to the increase of CO₂ intake and a decrease in oxygen flow for kids who need all the oxygen they can get during a learning environment. We recognized the masking of ourselves and kids for what it is: A political move to separate the two parties in our November election and define and create division between the two.”

Million Unmasked Patriots is one of dozens of antimask groups on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In July, Facebook suspended one such group, Unmasking America, which boasts 9,600 members, for posting repeated claims that face masks obstruct oxygen flow and have negative mental health effects.

Experts say the antiscience rhetoric is far from new. The antimask movement in many ways, shares similarities with that of the anti-vaccine movement, says Todd Wolynn, MD, a Pittsburgh pediatrician and cofounder of Shots Heard Round the World, an organization that defends vaccine advocates against coordinated online attacks by antivaxxers. Those espousing antimask views often relay similar or the same disinformation pushed by those with antivaccine views, Wolynn said.

“A lot of it is conspiracy-laden,” said Wolynn of the disinformation. “That Dr. [Anthony] Fauci somehow helped construct the pandemic and that it’s not real. That Bill Gates is funding the vaccine so he can inject people with microchips. All sorts of really out-there, ungrounded conspiracy theories. If you had Venn diagram of antimask and antivaxx, I would say there’s clearly overlap.”
 

Parallels between antimaskers, antivaxxers

Opponents to masks fall on a spectrum, explains Vineet Arora, MD, a hospitalist and associate chief medical officer–clinical learning environment at University of Chicago Medicine. People who believe conspiracy theories and push misinformation are on one end, she said. There are also those who generally don’t believe the seriousness of the pandemic, feel their risk is minimal, or doubt the benefits of masks.

The two trains of thought resemble the distinction among parents who are antivaccine and those who are simply “vaccine hesitant,” says Arora, who co-authored a recent article about masking and misinformation that addresses antivaccine attitudes.

“While the antimask sentiment gets a lot of attention, I think it’s important to highlight there’s a lot of vocal anti-mask sentiment since most people are supportive of masks,” she said. “There might be people sitting on the fence who are just unsure about wearing a mask. That’s understandable because the science and the communication has evolved. There was a lot of early mixed messages about masking. Anytime you have confusion about the science or the science is evolving, it’s easy to have misinformation and then have that take off as myth.”

Just as antivaxxers work to swing the opinion of the vaccine hesitant, antimaskers are vying with public health advocates for the support of the mask hesitant, she said. Creating doubt in public health authorities is one way they are gaining followers. Anti-maskers often question and scrutinize past messaging about masks by public health officials, claiming that because guidance on masks has changed over time, the science behind masks and current guidance can’t be trusted, Wolynn said. Similarly, antivaxxers frequently question past actions by public health officials, such as the Tuskegee Experiment (which began in 1932), to try to poke holes in the credibility of public health officials and their advice.

Both the antimask and antivaccine movements also tend to base their resistance on a personal liberties argument, adds Jacqueline Winfield Fincher, MD, president for the American College of Physicians and an internist based in Thomson, Georgia. Antimaskers contend they should be free to decide whether to wear face coverings and that rules requiring masks infringe upon their civil liberties. Similarly, antivaxxers argue they should be free to decide whether to vaccinate their children and contend vaccine mandates violate their personal liberties.

Taking a deeper look, fear and control are two likely drivers of antimasking and antivaccine attitudes, Fincher said. Those refusing to wear masks may feel they have no control over the pandemic or its impacts, but they can control how they respond to mask-wearing requirements, she said.

Antivaccine parents often want more control over their children’s healthcare and falsely believe that vaccines are injecting something harmful into their children or may lead to harmful reactions.

“It’s a control issue and a defense mechanism,” she said. “Some people may feel helpless to deal with the pandemic or believe since it is not affecting them or their family, that it is not real. ‘If I just deny it and I don’t acknowledge facts, I don’t have to worry about it or do anything about it, and therefore I will have more control over my day-to-day life.’”
 

Groups fueling each other

In some cases, antimask and antivaxx groups are joining forces or adopting dual causes.

In California for instance, longtime opponents to vaccines are now objecting to mask policies as similar infringement to their bodily autonomy. Demonstrations in Texas, Idaho, and Michigan against mask mandates and other COVID-19 requirements have drawn support from anti-vaccine activists and incorporated antivaccine propaganda.

In Illinois, Million Unmasked Patriots, formally the Million Unmasked March, has received widespread attention for protesting both masks for returning schoolchildren and a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

A July protest planned by the antimask group triggered a letter by Arora and 500 other healthcare professionals to Illinois lawmakers decrying the group’s views and urging the state to move forward with universal masking in schools.

“What’s happening is those who are distrustful of government and public health and science are joining together,” said Arora, who coauthored a piece about the problem on KevinMD.com. “It’s important to address both movements together because they can quickly feed off each other and build in momentum. At the heart of both is really this deep skepticism of science.”

Rebresh of Million Unmasked Patriots said most of his members are not opposed to all vaccines, but rather they are opposed to “untested vaccines.” The primary concern is the inability to research long-term effects of a COVID-19 vaccine before its approval, he said.

Rebresh disagrees with the antimask movement being compared with the antivaccine movement. The two groups are “motivated by different things and a different set of circumstances drive their opinions,” he said. However, Rebresh believes that potential harm resulting from “mass vaccinations” is a valid concern. For this reason, he and his wife chose for their children to receive their vaccinations individually over a series of weeks, rather than the “kiddie cocktail of vaccines,” at a single visit, he said.

Vaccine scientist Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said the antivaccine movement appears to have grown stronger from the pandemic fueled by fresh conspiracies and new alliances. Antivaccine sentiment has been gaining steam over the last several years and collecting more allies from the far-right, said Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine and codirector for the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

“Now what you’re seeing is yet another expansion this year, with antivaccine groups, under the banner of ‘health freedom,’ campaigning against social distancing and wearing masks and contact tracing,” he said. “What was an antivaccine movement has now become a full-blown antiscience movement and an anti-public health movement. It’s causing a lot of damage and I believe costing a lot of American lives.”

Neil F. Johnson, PhD, who has studied the antivaccine movement and its social media proliferation during the pandemic, said online comments by antivaxxers frequently condemn mask usage and showcase memes making fun of masks.

“In those same narratives about opposing vaccines for COVID, we see a lot of discussion against masks,” said Johnson, a physics professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “If you don’t believe in the official picture of COVID, you don’t believe the policies or the advice that’s given about COVID.”

An analysis by Johnson that examined 1,300 Facebook pages found that, while antivaxxers have fewer followers than provaccine pages, antivaccine pages are more numerous, faster growing, and are more often connected to unrelated, undecided pages. Conversely, pages that advocate the benefits of vaccinations and explain the science behind immunizations are largely disconnected from such undecided communities, according to the study, published May 13 in Nature.

The study suggests the antivaccine movement is making influential strides during the pandemic and connecting with people who are undecided, while public health advocates are not building the same bridges, Johnson said.

“I think it’s hugely dangerous, because I don’t know any other moment in science or in public health when there was so much uncertainty in something affecting everybody,” he said. “Every policy that will be coming, everything depends on people buying into the official message. Once you have the seeds of doubt, that’s a very difficult thing to overcome. It’s an unprecedented challenge.”
 

How physicians and clinicians can help

A more aggressive approach is necessary when it comes to taking down antiscience content on social media, says Hotez. Too often, misinformation and antiscience rhetoric is allowed to linger on popular sites such as Facebook and Amazon.

Wolynn agrees. On personal or business platforms, it’s crucial to ban, hide, and delete such comments as quickly as possible, he said. On public sites, purposeful disinformation should be immediately reported to the platform.

At the same time, Wolynn said it’s essential to support those who make sound, science-based comments in social media forums.

“If you see someone who is pushing accurate, evidence-based information, and they come under attack, they should be supported and defended and empowered,” Wolynn said. “Shots Heard Round the World is doing all of those things, including galvanizing and recruiting more people to help get their voices out there.”

Expanded visibility by physicians and scientists would greatly help counter the spread of antiscience sentiment, adds Hotez.

“Too often, antiscience movements are able to flourish because scientists and physicians are invisible,” he said. “They’re too focused on either clinical practices or in the case of physician scientists, on grants and papers and not enough attention to public engagement. We’re going to have to change that around. We need to hear more from scientists directly.”

To that end, Wolynn said health care professionals, including medical students and residents, need to have formal training in communications, media, and social media as part of their education – and more support from employers to engage through social media.

“That’s where the fight is,” Wolynn said. “You can be the best diagnostician, the best clinician. You can make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medication, but if families don’t hear what you’re saying, you’re not going to be effective. If you can’t be on the platform where they’re being influenced, we’re losing the battle.”
 

Speaking to your mask-hesitant patients

Concentrating on those who are uncertain about masks is particularly key for physicians and public health advocates as the pandemic continues, says Arora.

“It’s important for us to focus on the mask-hesitant who often don’t get the attention they need,” she said.

She suggests bringing up the subject of masks with patients during visits, asking about mask usage, discussing rumors they’ve heard, and emphasizing why masks are important. Be a role model by wearing a mask in your community and on social media, she added.

Some patients have real concerns about not being able to breathe through masks or anxiety disorders that can be aggravated even by the thought of wearing a mask, noted Susan R. Bailey, MD, president for the American Medical Association. Bailey, an immunologist, recently counseled a patient with a deviated nasal septum in addition to a panic disorder who was worried about wearing a mask, she said. Bailey listened to the patient’s concerns, discussed his health conditions, and proposed an alternative face covering that might make him more comfortable.

“Every patient is different,” Bailey said. “It’s important for us to remember that each person who is reluctant to wear a mask has their own reasons. It’s important for us to express some empathy – to agree with them, yes, masks are hot and inconvenient – and help understand their questions, which you may be able to answer to their satisfaction. There are patients that have legitimate questions and a physician caring about how they feel, can make all the difference.”

Physicians can also get involved with the AMA’s #MaskUp campaign, an effort to normalize mask wearing and debunk myths associated with masks. The campaign includes social media materials, slogans doctors can tweet, and profile pictures they can use on social media. The campaign’s toolkit includes images, videos, and information that physicians can share with patients and the public.

Enforcing strong mask policies at your practice and ensuring all staff are modeling appropriate mask behavior is also important, adds Fincher of the ACP. The college recently issued a policy supporting mask usage in community settings.

If a patient conveys an antimask belief, Fincher suggests not directly challenging the person’s views, but listening to them and offering objective data, discussing the science behind masks, and directing them to credible sources.

“Doctors are used to this. We recommend a lot of things to patients that they don’t want to do,” Fincher said. “If a patient feels attacked, they act defensively. But if you base your explanation in more objective terms with data, numbers, and personalize the risks and benefits of a vaccine, a healthy change in behavior, or a medication, then patients are more likely to hear your concerns and do the right thing. Having a long-term relationship with a trusted physician makes all of these issues much easier to discuss and to implement the best plan for the individual patient.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A renewed effort to vaccinate service members fighting the global war on terrorism has brought new diagnostic challenges. Vaccinations not generally given to the public are routinely given to service members when they deploy to various parts of the world. Examples include anthrax, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, rabies, polio, and smallpox. Every vaccination has potential for adverse effects (AEs), which can range from mild to severe life-threatening complications. These AEs often go unrecognized and untreated because physicians are not routinely screening for vaccination administration.

Background

Smallpox (Variola major) was successfully eradicated in 1977 due to worldwide vaccination efforts.¹ However, the threat of bioterrorism has renewed mandatory smallpox vaccinations for high-risk individuals, such as active-duty military personnel.^1,2 A notable increase in myopericarditis has been reported with the new generation of smallpox vaccination, ACAM2000.³ We present a case of a 27-year-old healthy male who presented with chest pain and diffuse ST segment elevations consistent with myopericarditis after vaccination with ACAM2000.

Case Presentation

A healthy 27-year-old soldier presented to the emergency department with sudden, new onset, sharp-stabbing, substernal chest pain, which was made worse with lying flat and better with leaning forward. Vital signs were unremarkable. He recently enlisted in the US Army and received the smallpox vaccination about 11 days before as part of a routine predeployment checklist. The patient reported he did not have any viral symptoms, such as fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, sore throat, rhinorrhea, or sputum production. He also reported having no prior illness for the past 3 months, sick contacts at home or work, or recent travel outside the US. He reported no tobacco use, alcohol use, or illicit drug use. The patient’s family history was negative for significant cardiac disease.

A physical examination was unremarkable. The initial laboratory report showed no leukocytosis, anemia, thrombocytopenia, electrolytes derangement, abnormal kidney function, or abnormal liver function tests. Initial troponin was 0.25 ng/mL, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 40 mmol/h and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 120.2 mg/L suggestive of acute inflammation. A urine drug screen was negative. D-dimer was < 0.27. An electrocardiogram (ECG) showed diffuse ST segment elevation (Figure 1). An echocardiogram showed normal left ventricle size, and function with ejection fraction 55 to 60%, normal diastolic dysfunction, and trivial pericardial effusion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed increased T2 signal intensity of the myocardium suggestive of myopericarditis (Figure 2). A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the coronary arteries showed no significant stenosis.

Discussion

Smallpox was a major worldwide cause of mortality; about 30% of those infected died because of smallpox.^2,4,5 Due to a worldwide vaccination effort, the World Health Organization declared smallpox was eradicated in 1977.^2,4,5 However, despite successful eradication, smallpox is considered a possible bioterrorism target, which prompted a resurgence of mandatory smallpox vaccinations for active-duty personnel.^2,5

Dryvax, a freeze-dried calf lymph smallpox vaccine was used extensively from the 1940s to the 1980s but was replaced in 2008 by ACAM2000, a smallpox vaccine cultured in kidney epithelial cells from African green monkeys.^3,5 Myopericarditis was rarely associated with the Dryvax, with only 5 cases reported from 1955 to 1986 after millions of doses of vaccines were administered; however, in 230,734 administered ACAM2000 doses, 18 cases of myopericarditis (incidence, 7.8 per 100,000) were reported during a surveillance study in 2002 and 2003.^3,5

Myopericarditis presents with a wide variety of symptoms, such as chest pain, palpitations, chills, shortness of breath, and fever.^6,7 Mainstay diagnostic criteria include ECG findings consistent with myopericarditis (such as diffuse ST segment elevations) and elevated cardiac biomarkers (elevated troponins).^5-7 An echocardiogram can be helpful in diagnosis, as most cases will not have regional wall motion abnormalities (to distinguish against coronary artery disease).^5-7 MRI with diffuse enhancement of the myocardium can be helpful in diagnosis.^5,6 The gold standard for diagnosis is an endomyocardial biopsy, which carries a significant risk of complications and is not routinely performed to diagnose myopericarditis.^5,6 US military smallpox vaccination data showed that the onset of vaccine-associated myopericarditis averaged (SD) 10.4 (3.6) days after vaccination.⁵

Vaccine-associated myopericarditis treatment is focused on decreasing inflammation.^5,6 Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are advised for about 2 weeks with cessation of intensive cardiac activities for between 4 and 6 weeks due to risks of congestive heart failure and fatal cardiac arrhythmias.^5,6

Conclusions

Since the September 11 attacks, the US needs to be continually prepared for potential terrorism on American soil and abroad. The threat of bioterrorism has renewed efforts to vaccinate or revaccinate American service members deployed to high-risk regions. These vaccinations put them at risk for vaccination-induced complications that can range from mild fever to life-threatening complications.

A renewed effort to vaccinate service members fighting the global war on terrorism has brought new diagnostic challenges. Vaccinations not generally given to the public are routinely given to service members when they deploy to various parts of the world. Examples include anthrax, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, rabies, polio, and smallpox. Every vaccination has potential for adverse effects (AEs), which can range from mild to severe life-threatening complications. These AEs often go unrecognized and untreated because physicians are not routinely screening for vaccination administration.

Background

Smallpox (Variola major) was successfully eradicated in 1977 due to worldwide vaccination efforts.¹ However, the threat of bioterrorism has renewed mandatory smallpox vaccinations for high-risk individuals, such as active-duty military personnel.^1,2 A notable increase in myopericarditis has been reported with the new generation of smallpox vaccination, ACAM2000.³ We present a case of a 27-year-old healthy male who presented with chest pain and diffuse ST segment elevations consistent with myopericarditis after vaccination with ACAM2000.

Case Presentation

A healthy 27-year-old soldier presented to the emergency department with sudden, new onset, sharp-stabbing, substernal chest pain, which was made worse with lying flat and better with leaning forward. Vital signs were unremarkable. He recently enlisted in the US Army and received the smallpox vaccination about 11 days before as part of a routine predeployment checklist. The patient reported he did not have any viral symptoms, such as fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, sore throat, rhinorrhea, or sputum production. He also reported having no prior illness for the past 3 months, sick contacts at home or work, or recent travel outside the US. He reported no tobacco use, alcohol use, or illicit drug use. The patient’s family history was negative for significant cardiac disease.

A physical examination was unremarkable. The initial laboratory report showed no leukocytosis, anemia, thrombocytopenia, electrolytes derangement, abnormal kidney function, or abnormal liver function tests. Initial troponin was 0.25 ng/mL, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 40 mmol/h and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 120.2 mg/L suggestive of acute inflammation. A urine drug screen was negative. D-dimer was < 0.27. An electrocardiogram (ECG) showed diffuse ST segment elevation (Figure 1). An echocardiogram showed normal left ventricle size, and function with ejection fraction 55 to 60%, normal diastolic dysfunction, and trivial pericardial effusion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed increased T2 signal intensity of the myocardium suggestive of myopericarditis (Figure 2). A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the coronary arteries showed no significant stenosis.

Discussion

Smallpox was a major worldwide cause of mortality; about 30% of those infected died because of smallpox.^2,4,5 Due to a worldwide vaccination effort, the World Health Organization declared smallpox was eradicated in 1977.^2,4,5 However, despite successful eradication, smallpox is considered a possible bioterrorism target, which prompted a resurgence of mandatory smallpox vaccinations for active-duty personnel.^2,5

Dryvax, a freeze-dried calf lymph smallpox vaccine was used extensively from the 1940s to the 1980s but was replaced in 2008 by ACAM2000, a smallpox vaccine cultured in kidney epithelial cells from African green monkeys.^3,5 Myopericarditis was rarely associated with the Dryvax, with only 5 cases reported from 1955 to 1986 after millions of doses of vaccines were administered; however, in 230,734 administered ACAM2000 doses, 18 cases of myopericarditis (incidence, 7.8 per 100,000) were reported during a surveillance study in 2002 and 2003.^3,5

Myopericarditis presents with a wide variety of symptoms, such as chest pain, palpitations, chills, shortness of breath, and fever.^6,7 Mainstay diagnostic criteria include ECG findings consistent with myopericarditis (such as diffuse ST segment elevations) and elevated cardiac biomarkers (elevated troponins).^5-7 An echocardiogram can be helpful in diagnosis, as most cases will not have regional wall motion abnormalities (to distinguish against coronary artery disease).^5-7 MRI with diffuse enhancement of the myocardium can be helpful in diagnosis.^5,6 The gold standard for diagnosis is an endomyocardial biopsy, which carries a significant risk of complications and is not routinely performed to diagnose myopericarditis.^5,6 US military smallpox vaccination data showed that the onset of vaccine-associated myopericarditis averaged (SD) 10.4 (3.6) days after vaccination.⁵

Vaccine-associated myopericarditis treatment is focused on decreasing inflammation.^5,6 Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are advised for about 2 weeks with cessation of intensive cardiac activities for between 4 and 6 weeks due to risks of congestive heart failure and fatal cardiac arrhythmias.^5,6

Conclusions

Since the September 11 attacks, the US needs to be continually prepared for potential terrorism on American soil and abroad. The threat of bioterrorism has renewed efforts to vaccinate or revaccinate American service members deployed to high-risk regions. These vaccinations put them at risk for vaccination-induced complications that can range from mild fever to life-threatening complications.

A renewed effort to vaccinate service members fighting the global war on terrorism has brought new diagnostic challenges. Vaccinations not generally given to the public are routinely given to service members when they deploy to various parts of the world. Examples include anthrax, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, rabies, polio, and smallpox. Every vaccination has potential for adverse effects (AEs), which can range from mild to severe life-threatening complications. These AEs often go unrecognized and untreated because physicians are not routinely screening for vaccination administration.

Background

Smallpox (Variola major) was successfully eradicated in 1977 due to worldwide vaccination efforts.¹ However, the threat of bioterrorism has renewed mandatory smallpox vaccinations for high-risk individuals, such as active-duty military personnel.^1,2 A notable increase in myopericarditis has been reported with the new generation of smallpox vaccination, ACAM2000.³ We present a case of a 27-year-old healthy male who presented with chest pain and diffuse ST segment elevations consistent with myopericarditis after vaccination with ACAM2000.

Case Presentation

A healthy 27-year-old soldier presented to the emergency department with sudden, new onset, sharp-stabbing, substernal chest pain, which was made worse with lying flat and better with leaning forward. Vital signs were unremarkable. He recently enlisted in the US Army and received the smallpox vaccination about 11 days before as part of a routine predeployment checklist. The patient reported he did not have any viral symptoms, such as fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, sore throat, rhinorrhea, or sputum production. He also reported having no prior illness for the past 3 months, sick contacts at home or work, or recent travel outside the US. He reported no tobacco use, alcohol use, or illicit drug use. The patient’s family history was negative for significant cardiac disease.

A physical examination was unremarkable. The initial laboratory report showed no leukocytosis, anemia, thrombocytopenia, electrolytes derangement, abnormal kidney function, or abnormal liver function tests. Initial troponin was 0.25 ng/mL, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 40 mmol/h and C-reactive protein (CRP) was 120.2 mg/L suggestive of acute inflammation. A urine drug screen was negative. D-dimer was < 0.27. An electrocardiogram (ECG) showed diffuse ST segment elevation (Figure 1). An echocardiogram showed normal left ventricle size, and function with ejection fraction 55 to 60%, normal diastolic dysfunction, and trivial pericardial effusion. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed increased T2 signal intensity of the myocardium suggestive of myopericarditis (Figure 2). A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the coronary arteries showed no significant stenosis.

Discussion

Smallpox was a major worldwide cause of mortality; about 30% of those infected died because of smallpox.^2,4,5 Due to a worldwide vaccination effort, the World Health Organization declared smallpox was eradicated in 1977.^2,4,5 However, despite successful eradication, smallpox is considered a possible bioterrorism target, which prompted a resurgence of mandatory smallpox vaccinations for active-duty personnel.^2,5

Dryvax, a freeze-dried calf lymph smallpox vaccine was used extensively from the 1940s to the 1980s but was replaced in 2008 by ACAM2000, a smallpox vaccine cultured in kidney epithelial cells from African green monkeys.^3,5 Myopericarditis was rarely associated with the Dryvax, with only 5 cases reported from 1955 to 1986 after millions of doses of vaccines were administered; however, in 230,734 administered ACAM2000 doses, 18 cases of myopericarditis (incidence, 7.8 per 100,000) were reported during a surveillance study in 2002 and 2003.^3,5

Myopericarditis presents with a wide variety of symptoms, such as chest pain, palpitations, chills, shortness of breath, and fever.^6,7 Mainstay diagnostic criteria include ECG findings consistent with myopericarditis (such as diffuse ST segment elevations) and elevated cardiac biomarkers (elevated troponins).^5-7 An echocardiogram can be helpful in diagnosis, as most cases will not have regional wall motion abnormalities (to distinguish against coronary artery disease).^5-7 MRI with diffuse enhancement of the myocardium can be helpful in diagnosis.^5,6 The gold standard for diagnosis is an endomyocardial biopsy, which carries a significant risk of complications and is not routinely performed to diagnose myopericarditis.^5,6 US military smallpox vaccination data showed that the onset of vaccine-associated myopericarditis averaged (SD) 10.4 (3.6) days after vaccination.⁵

Vaccine-associated myopericarditis treatment is focused on decreasing inflammation.^5,6 Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are advised for about 2 weeks with cessation of intensive cardiac activities for between 4 and 6 weeks due to risks of congestive heart failure and fatal cardiac arrhythmias.^5,6

Conclusions

Since the September 11 attacks, the US needs to be continually prepared for potential terrorism on American soil and abroad. The threat of bioterrorism has renewed efforts to vaccinate or revaccinate American service members deployed to high-risk regions. These vaccinations put them at risk for vaccination-induced complications that can range from mild fever to life-threatening complications.

References

1. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the US. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. Fact Sheet: explaining Operation Warp Speed. www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
3. O’Callahan KP, Blatz AM, Offit PA. Developing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at warp speed. JAMA. 2020;324:437-438.
4. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, et al. mRNA vaccines—a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17:261-279.
5. Lurie N, Sharfstein JM, Goodman JL. The development of COVID-19 vaccines: safeguards needed [commentary]. JAMA. 2020;324:439-440.
6. Salman DA, Akhtar A, Mergler MJ, et al; H1N1 Working Group of Federal Immunization Safety Task Force. Immunization safety monitoring systems for the 2009 H1N1 monovalent influenza vaccination program. Pediatrics. 2011;127(suppl 1):S78-S86.

References

1. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the US. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. Fact Sheet: explaining Operation Warp Speed. www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
3. O’Callahan KP, Blatz AM, Offit PA. Developing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at warp speed. JAMA. 2020;324:437-438.
4. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, et al. mRNA vaccines—a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17:261-279.
5. Lurie N, Sharfstein JM, Goodman JL. The development of COVID-19 vaccines: safeguards needed [commentary]. JAMA. 2020;324:439-440.
6. Salman DA, Akhtar A, Mergler MJ, et al; H1N1 Working Group of Federal Immunization Safety Task Force. Immunization safety monitoring systems for the 2009 H1N1 monovalent influenza vaccination program. Pediatrics. 2011;127(suppl 1):S78-S86.

References

1. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the US. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. Fact Sheet: explaining Operation Warp Speed. www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html. Accessed August 18, 2020.
3. O’Callahan KP, Blatz AM, Offit PA. Developing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at warp speed. JAMA. 2020;324:437-438.
4. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, et al. mRNA vaccines—a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17:261-279.
5. Lurie N, Sharfstein JM, Goodman JL. The development of COVID-19 vaccines: safeguards needed [commentary]. JAMA. 2020;324:439-440.
6. Salman DA, Akhtar A, Mergler MJ, et al; H1N1 Working Group of Federal Immunization Safety Task Force. Immunization safety monitoring systems for the 2009 H1N1 monovalent influenza vaccination program. Pediatrics. 2011;127(suppl 1):S78-S86.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.