CHEST Physician

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816

If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.

The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.

It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.

Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.

Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.

COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.

Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.

Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”

The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.

“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”

Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.

Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.

“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.

But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”

While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.

Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.

Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.

Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.

But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”

In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.

Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.

In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.

“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”

And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.

“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.

The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.

It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.

Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.

Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.

COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.

Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.

Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”

The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.

“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”

Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.

Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.

“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.

But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”

While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.

Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.

Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.

Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.

But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”

In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.

Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.

In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.

“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”

And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.

“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

If clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines aren’t expanded soon to include children, it’s unlikely that even kids in their teens will be vaccinated in time for the next school year.

The hurdle is that COVID vaccine makers are only in the early stages of testing their products on children. The Pfizer vaccine authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration on Friday was greenlighted only for people aged 16 years and older. Moderna just started trials for 12- to 17-year-olds for its vaccine, likely to be authorized later this month.

It will take months to approve use of the vaccines for middle- and high school–aged kids, and months more to test them in younger children. But some pediatricians say that concerns about the safety of the front-runner vaccines make the wait worthwhile.

Although most pediatricians believe the eventual vaccination of children will be crucial to subduing the COVID virus, they’re split on how fast to move toward that, says James Campbell, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health in Baltimore. Dr. Campbell and colleagues said it’s a matter of urgency to get the vaccines tested in kids, while others want to hold off on those trials until millions of adults have been safely vaccinated.

Much of the debate centers on two issues: the degree of harm COVID-19 causes children and the extent to which children are spreading the virus to their friends, teachers, parents and grandparents.

COVID-19’s impact on children represents a tiny fraction of the suffering and death experienced by vulnerable adults. Yet it would qualify as a pretty serious childhood disease, having caused 154 deaths and more than 7,500 hospitalizations as of Dec. 3 among aged people 19 years and younger in the United States. Those numbers rank it as worse than a typical year of influenza, and worse than diseases like mumps or hepatitis B in children before the vaccination era.

Studies thus far show that 1%-2% of children infected with the virus end up requiring intensive care, Stanley Plotkin, MD, professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia told a federal panel. That’s in line with the percentage who become gravely ill as result of infections like Haemophilus influenzae type B, for which doctors have vaccinated children since the 1980s, he pointed out.

Dr. Campbell, who with colleagues has developed a plan for how to run pediatric COVID vaccine trials, pointed out that, “in a universe where COVID mainly affected children the way it’s affecting them now, and we had potential vaccines, people would be clamoring for them.”

The evidence that teens can transmit the disease is pretty clear, and transmission has been documented in children as young as 8. Fear of spread by children has been enough to close schools, and led the American Academy of Pediatrics to demand that children be quickly included in vaccine testing.

“The longer we take to start kids in trials, the longer it will take them to get vaccinated and to break the chains of transmission,” said Yvonne Maldonado, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University who chairs the AAP’s infectious disease committee. “If you want kids to go back to school and not have the teachers union terrified, you have to make sure they aren’t a risk.”

Other pediatricians worry that early pediatric trials could backfire. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center and a member of the FDA’s advisory committee on vaccines, is worried that whatever causes multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, a rare but frightening COVID-related disorder, might also be triggered, however rarely, by vaccination.

Dr. Meissner abstained from the committee’s vote Thursday that supported, by a 17-4 vote, an emergency authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 16 years and older.

“I have trouble justifying it for children so unlikely to get the disease,” he said during debate on the measure.

But panel member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the 16-years-and-up authorization would speed the vaccine’s testing in and approval for younger children. That is vital for the world’s protection from COVID-19, he said, since in the United States and most places “most vaccines are delivered early in life.”

While vaccines given to tens of thousands of people so far appear to be safe, the lack of understanding of the inflammatory syndrome means that children in any trials should be followed closely, said Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Under a 2003 law, vaccine companies are required eventually to test all their products on children. By late November, Pfizer had vaccinated approximately 100 children aged 12-15 years, said spokesperson Jerica Pitts.

Moderna has started enrolling 3,000 children aged 12 years and over in another clinical trial, and other companies have similar plans. Assuming the trials show the vaccines are safe and provide a good immune response, future tests could include progressively younger children, moving to, say, 6- to 12-year-olds next, then 2- to 6-year-olds. Eventually, trials could include younger toddlers and infants.

Similar step-down approaches were taken to test vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV), influenza and other diseases in the past, Dr. Erbelding noted. Such trials are easiest to conduct when researchers know that a measurable immune response, like antibody levels in the blood, translates to effective protection against disease. Armed with such knowledge, they can see whether children were protected without them having to be exposed to the virus. Federal scientists hope to get that data from the Moderna and Pfizer adult vaccine trials, she said.

Vaccine trials geared to tweens or younger children may involve testing half-doses, which, if protective, would require less vaccine and might cause fewer incidents of sore arms and fevers that afflicted many who’ve received the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Campbell said.

But unless additional studies begin quickly, the window for having an FDA-authorized vaccine available before the next school year “will be closed even for our oldest children,” said Evan Anderson, MD, a pediatrics professor at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our younger children are almost certainly going into next school year without a vaccine option available for them.”

In the meantime, teachers are likely to be high on the priority list for vaccination. Protecting school staff could allow more schools to reopen even if most children can’t be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said.

Eventually, if the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains in circulation, governments may want to mandate childhood vaccination against the virus to protect them as they grow up and protect society as a whole, Dr. Plotkin said.

In the 1960s, Dr. Plotkin invented the rubella vaccine that has been given to hundreds of millions of children since. Like COVID-19, rubella – or German measles – is not usually a serious illness for children. But congenital rubella syndrome afflicted babies in the womb with blindness, deafness, developmental delays, and autism. Immunizing toddlers, which, in turn, protects their pregnant mothers, has indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of such cases.

“We don’t want to use children to protect everyone in the community,” said Dr. Campbell. “But when you can protect both children and their community, that’s important.”

And while a coronavirus infection may not be bad for most children, missed school, absent friends, and distanced families have caused them immense suffering, he said.

“It’s a huge burden on a child to have their entire world flipped around,” Dr. Campbell said. “If vaccinating could help to flip it back, we should begin testing to see if that’s possible.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.

One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.

The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.

Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”

Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.

An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”

He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.

That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”

One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”

The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.

After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.

The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m², and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.

Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m² (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m² (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.

Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.

“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.

“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.

The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.

Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”

Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest. 

“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.

The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.

One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.

The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.

Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”

Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.

An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”

He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.

That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”

One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”

The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.

After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.

The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m², and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.

Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m² (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m² (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.

Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.

“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.

“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.

The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.

Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”

Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest. 

“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.

The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although guidelines generally recommend ambulatory over home blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension, new research questions home BP monitoring’s role as second fiddle.

One week of home BP monitoring (HBPM) was more reliable than one 24-hour ambulatory BP or nine mercury readings across three office visits among younger, untreated participants in the Improving the Detection of Hypertension study.

The reliability coefficients were 0.938, 0.846, and 0.894 for systolic BP and 0.918, 0.843, and 0.847 for diastolic BP, respectively.

Further, HBPM had the strongest association with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, according to researchers led by Joseph E. Schwartz, PhD, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The association with LVMI also remained after multivariate adjustment and after correcting for regression dilution bias, indicating the results were not a result of differences in the number of readings, they write in the study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Whenever patients have an elevated blood pressure for the first time or even borderline elevated BP, guidelines recommend clinicians request a 24-hour ambulatory recording or home monitoring, Dr. Schwartz said in an interview. “I think this has the potential, for that purpose, to put ambulatory blood pressure monitoring out of business, even though that’s what I’ve done for 30 years.”

Previous studies have shown that home and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) correlate more strongly with target-organ damage and cardiovascular outcomes than office BP, but head-to-head outcomes trials of the two techniques are lacking. A recent systematic review also found scant evidence supporting one approach over the other for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.

An accompanying editorial notes that ABPM is largely unavailable to primary care physicians in the United States and poorly reimbursed. “Thus the demonstration that HBPM is more reliable and associates more closely with LVMI than ABPM, if confirmed, would carry the potential to change clinical practice,” wrote Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and Thomas H. Marwick, MBBS, PhD, MPH, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

In a comment, ABPM proponent Raymond R. Townsend, MD, said, “Honestly, it may be that we’ll need to act on this. I’m not quite ready to do that and change my practice patterns but, on the other hand, I can’t sweep this under the rug.”

He noted that it’s ironic the study is coauthored by the late Thomas Pickering, MD, a maven of ABPM who coined the term “white-coat hypertension” and pointed out masked hypertension.

That said, “it raised the bar on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it really worth our public health dollars? So I think it’s a very good call to arms,” said Dr. Townsend, who directs the hypertension program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ambulatory BP monitoring has long been considered the preferred method but, from a cost standpoint, HBPM is more attractive because the devices can be used more than once and track more than one person in a household, he said. The Center for Medicare Management also has a code in the 2020 bundle to reimburse physicians $15 for training patients and has a monthly charge for communicating with those filing regularly. “You’re not going to get rich doing monitoring of home BP, but at least the government is recognizing we are moving more and more to the home base in terms of our managing common conditions like blood pressure.”

One of the attractions of ABPM is the ability to do every half hour to every hour nocturnal pressures, but at least one home monitor, manufactured by Microlife, has added a nocturnal feature, Dr. Townsend noted. “So that’s just one more incoming against the ABPM defenses about why ABPMs are still better.”

The study enrolled a community-based sample of 408 participants who had office BP assessed at three visits (three readings per visit) using a mercury sphygmomanometer, a BpTRU (VSM MedTech) automated oscillometric device, and a home-validated Omron Healthcare oscillometric device.

After 5 minutes of in-office training and receipt of a reference sheet, participants also completed 3 weeks of HBPM with the Omron device as well as two 24-hour ambulatory measurements (Spacelabs Healthcare, Model 90207). Cardiovascular evaluations, including two-dimensional echocardiograms, were performed during the fifth office visit.

The 400 participants who completed all five visits had a mean age of 41 years, mean LVMI of 79.3 g/m², and mean office systolic BP ranging from 116.0 to 117.2 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 75.6 to 76.5 mm Hg.

Both before and after correction for regression dilution bias, home systolic and diastolic BP were more highly correlated with LVMI than 24-hour ambulatory or office mercury readings. The corrected correlations for systolic BP were 0.501, 0.430, and 0.389, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment including office and 24-hour ambulatory BP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic home BP were associated with 5.07 g/m² (P = .001) and 3.92 g/m² (P = .07) higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for home BP, however, neither systolic or diastolic office BP nor ambulatory BP was associated with LVMI.

Dr. Townsend and editorialists Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick pointed out the study included a younger population in whom just 30% to 50% would have been classified as having hypertension by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, which Dr. Carey helped to pen.

“These people are young and older people have a different kind of blood pressure driven more by the stiffness in their circulation and less by the resistance to blood flow that you find more characteristic in younger people,” Dr. Townsend observed.

“I don’t know that you can extrapolate the findings from this study in healthy, younger untreated people to older, perhaps sicker, and more diabetic people where the real action is and where the endpoints like heart attack, death, and stroke actually occur,” he said.

The results suggest measurement of resting daytime BP may be relatively more important than dynamic daytime and/or nocturnal parameters in predicting subclinical cardiac target organ damage, but this requires further study, Dr. Carey and Dr. Marwick noted.

Commenting further, they wrote that the results suggest “HBPM could be especially important for detecting elevated BP and hypertension early in life, when adults are relatively healthy, but those with hypertension have a high lifetime risk of CVD.”

Dr. Schwartz acknowledged the study didn’t include the typical hypertensive patient but said it goes to the central question of whether the risk associated with blood pressure is because of the heart’s cumulative exposure over its lifetime and, thus, best measured with multiple readings taken under a variety of circumstances or with readings taken only at rest. 

“I’ve been posing that question at a conceptual level for 15 years, never in print, and this paper is the first hint, at least with respect to the left ventricular mass index … that getting a better measure of resting blood pressure is more important for controlling risk than the heart’s cumulative exposure to blood pressure, as measured by ambulatory,” he said.

The Improving the Detection of Hypertension study was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend reported receiving royalties as a writer for UpToDate and serving as an unpaid reviewer for ValidateBP.org. Dr. Carey is principal investigator and project director of a NIH R01 and P01 grant, respectively; vice chair of the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline writing committee; and chair of the AHA Resistant Hypertension Scientific Statement writing committee. Dr. Marwick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.

Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.

The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.

In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.

In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.

The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.

The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.

Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.

FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.

“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.

“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”

As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.

This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.

Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.

Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.

Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.

The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.

In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.

In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.

The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.

The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.

Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.

FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.

“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.

“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”

As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.

This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.

Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.

Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization (EUA) for the first COVID-19 diagnostic test that can be completed at home without a prescription.

Authorization of the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is “a major milestone in diagnostic testing for COVID-19,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

“By authorizing a test for over-the-counter use, the FDA allows it to be sold in places like drug stores, where a patient can buy it, swab their nose, run the test, and find out their results in as little as 20 minutes,” said Dr. Hahn.

The Ellume COVID-19 Home Test is a rapid antigen test that detects fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from a nasal swab sample taken from anyone aged 2 years and older, including those not showing any symptoms.

In testing, the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test correctly identified 96% of positive samples and 100% of negative samples in individuals with symptoms.

In people without symptoms, the test correctly identified 91% of positive samples and 96% of negative samples, the FDA said.

The test includes a sterile nasal swab, a dropper, processing fluid, and a Bluetooth-connected analyzer for use with an app on the user’s smartphone. The sample is analyzed and results are automatically transmitted to the user’s smartphone.

“The Ellume COVID-19 home test’s core technology combines ultra-sensitive optics, electronics, and proprietary software to leverage best-in-class digital immunoassay technology with next-generation multi-quantum dot fluorescence technology,” the company said in a news release.

The mobile app requires individuals to input their ZIP code and date of birth, with optional fields including name and email address. The app automatically reports the results as appropriate to public health authorities to monitor disease prevalence.

Ellume expects to produce more than 3 million tests in January 2021. The company said the test will cost around $30.

FDA authorization of this first fully at-home nonprescription COVID-19 diagnostic test follows last month’s EUA for the first prescription COVID-19 test for home use, as reported this news organization.

Since the start of the pandemic, the FDA has authorized more than 225 diagnostic tests for COVID-19, including more than 25 tests that allow for home collection of samples, which are then sent to a lab for testing.

“As we continue to authorize additional tests for home use, we are helping expand Americans’ access to testing, reducing the burden on laboratories and test supplies, and giving Americans more testing options from the comfort and safety of their own homes,” Dr. Hahn said.

“This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the release. “However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”

As with other antigen tests, a small percentage of positive and negative results from the Ellume test may be false. In patients without symptoms, positive results should be treated as presumptively positive until confirmed by another test as soon as possible, the FDA advised.

This is especially true if there are fewer infections in a particular community, as false-positive results can be more common when antigen tests are used in populations where there is a low prevalence of COVID-19, the agency said.

Because all tests can give false-negative and false-positive results, individuals with positive results should self-isolate and seek additional care from their health care provider.

Individuals who test negative and have symptoms of COVID-19 should follow up with their health care provider, as negative results don’t preclude an individual from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it to gtwachtman@mdedge.com.

Physicians will soon start having an easier time – and perhaps get paid more money – when they code for evaluation and management (E/M) services, thanks to the American Medical Association.

The first major changes to the definitions for E/M services will be in effect as of Jan. 1, 2021, with all payers expected to adopt these new guidelines. In particular, the AMA has revised the definitions for E/M codes 99202-99215 in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2021 codebook. The existing guidelines were developed in 1995 and 1997 and remain in effect for all other E/M services determined by history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).

What do the new changes mean to you? In 2021, for new and established office and other outpatient services reported with codes 99202-99215, a clinician may select the code on the basis of time or MDM.

There are three elements in MDM, and two of three are required. These elements are the number and complexity of problems addressed, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.

Make sure you familiarize yourself with these six big changes. It may take a bit of time to integrate these new processes into your daily routine, but wrapping your head around them as soon as possible can help boost your bottom line:
 

1. History and exam don’t count toward level of service

Physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants won’t use history or exam to select what level of code to bill for office visits 99202-99215, as they did in the past. They need only document a medically appropriate history and exam. The history may be obtained by staff members and reviewed by the billing practitioner.

While specific history and exam requirements disappear for office visit codes, they remain for all other types of visits, selected on the basis of history, exam, and MDM, such as hospital services, nursing facility services, and home and domiciliary care. So, say goodbye to “all other systems reviewed and negative” in office notes, but keep it handy for those other E/M codes.

2. All time spent caring for the patient on a particular day counts

This includes all time spent on the day of service, including preparing to see the patient, seeing the patient, phone calls or other work done after the visit (if not billed with a care management or other CPT code), and documenting in the medical record. The AMA developed new guidelines for using time for office and other outpatient services. For codes 99202-99215, count all of the face-to-face and non–face-to-face time spent by the billing clinician on the day of the visit. Counseling does not need to be more than 50% of the total time.

Do not include any staff time or time spent on any days before or after the visit. This allows clinicians to capture the work when a significant amount of it takes place before or after the visit with the patient, and to bill for it on the day of the visit.

According to the 2021 CPT codebook, physician or other qualified health care professional time includes the following activities:

• Preparing to see the patient (e.g., review of tests).
• Obtaining and/or reviewing separately obtained history.
• Performing a medically appropriate examination and/or evaluation.
• Counseling and educating the patient/family/caregiver.
• Ordering medications, tests, or procedures.
• Referring and communicating with other health care professionals (when not separately reported).
• Documenting clinical information in the electronic or other health record.
• Independently interpreting results (not separately reported) and communicating results to the patient/family/caregiver.
• Care coordination (not separately reported).

3. Soon to be gone: ‘new to the examiner’ and ‘workup planned’

The current guidelines don’t differentiate between a new problem to the clinician or an established problem to the clinician. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re hearing about a particular problem for the first time or the fifth time. The new office and outpatient services guidelines define problems only as they relate to the patient. For example, when selecting a level of service, a chronic problem with a mild exacerbation is the same level whether it’s the primary care physician seeing the patient for the 10th time to help manage her diabetes or the endocrinologist seeing the patient for the first time.

In the current guidelines (1995 and 1997), additional weight is given in selecting the level of MDM for a problem that’s new to the examiner with a workup planned, yet when the diagnostic test couldn’t be completed at the visit. This concept is gone from element of number and complexity of new problems. Ordering diagnostic tests is part of the second element, the amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.

4. Different guidelines if you need a history from a parent or other source

The new guidelines recognize the additional work required by the clinician when the patient is unable to give a history or when the practitioner doesn’t find the history to be reliable.

For example, in the case of a baby or child who is unable to give a history, the parent counts as an “independent historian,” according to the new guidelines. Likewise, for a patient with dementia, the caregiver counts as a historian. Note, however, that the criteria is not met simply because the patient is accompanied by another person. The additional weight in selecting the level of service is based on the patient being unable to give a reliable history.

Bottom line: In cases where patients are unable to communicate clearly, physicians or other providers should document the necessity of getting a complete history and who provided it.

5. A new spin on social determinants of health (SDoH)

In the risk of morbidity and/or mortality element, conditions described as “social determinants of health” are considered moderate complexity. SDoH are social and environmental factors that affect a patient’s health and medical outcomes. These include homelessness, inability to afford medications, food insecurity, and occupational exposure to risk factors. These circumstances are reported with codes in categories Z55-Z65.

In the past, physicians often documented this information in their office notes but rarely added a diagnosis code that described the patient’s situation. The ICD-10-CM code set includes codes that describe these factors. Using them allows the practice to track patients who have increased needs, and it communicates to payers the complexity of caring for these patients.

6. Risks related to surgery are defined

The current guidelines assign different levels of risk to minor and major surgery. They also include differentiation for “minor surgery with no identified risk factors,” “minor surgery with identified risk factors,” “elective major surgery with no identified risk factors,” and “elective major surgery with identified risk factors.” The old guidelines didn’t state whether the risk factors pertained to the patient – such as smoking, heart disease, or high body mass index – or to the procedure itself.

The new guidelines specifically say that it’s both. In the risk column, “decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding elective major surgery without patient or procedure risk factors” are both considered moderate. “Decision regarding elective major surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding emergency major surgery” are in the high complexity column for risk.

Keep in mind that two of three elements are required: the number and complexity of problems, amount of data, and morbidity/mortality risk. Risk of morbidity/mortality alone doesn’t count as the basis for selecting the code. Of course, when surgeons see this, they ask, “What major procedures don’t have identified risk factors?”

Note, too, that these new CPT guidelines do not define the terms “minor” and “major” surgery. For payment reasons related to the postop period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services defines minor surgery as a procedure with 0-10 global days and a major surgery as a procedure with 90 global days. However, there are many procedures with 0 global days (endoscopy, cardiac catheterization) that are not minor procedures. Hopefully, the AMA will clarify this in 2021.
 

What’s the take-away for clinicians?

There are sure to be shifts in coding patterns based on these new guidelines. Some specialties will find that not being able to select a service based on history and exam alone will lower the level of service for which they can bill. Some practices, on the other hand, will be able to code for more high-level visits, without the need for a complete review of systems or a comprehensive exam.

The biggest challenge will be for practices that provide services both in the hospital and in the office, because they’ll have to use both sets of guidelines, depending on which type of service they’re performing.

For more details on what’s coming your way beginning on New Year’s Day, you may want to read the 16-page AMA document .
 

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

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it to gtwachtman@mdedge.com.

Physicians will soon start having an easier time – and perhaps get paid more money – when they code for evaluation and management (E/M) services, thanks to the American Medical Association.

The first major changes to the definitions for E/M services will be in effect as of Jan. 1, 2021, with all payers expected to adopt these new guidelines. In particular, the AMA has revised the definitions for E/M codes 99202-99215 in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2021 codebook. The existing guidelines were developed in 1995 and 1997 and remain in effect for all other E/M services determined by history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).

What do the new changes mean to you? In 2021, for new and established office and other outpatient services reported with codes 99202-99215, a clinician may select the code on the basis of time or MDM.

There are three elements in MDM, and two of three are required. These elements are the number and complexity of problems addressed, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.

Make sure you familiarize yourself with these six big changes. It may take a bit of time to integrate these new processes into your daily routine, but wrapping your head around them as soon as possible can help boost your bottom line:
 

1. History and exam don’t count toward level of service

Physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants won’t use history or exam to select what level of code to bill for office visits 99202-99215, as they did in the past. They need only document a medically appropriate history and exam. The history may be obtained by staff members and reviewed by the billing practitioner.

While specific history and exam requirements disappear for office visit codes, they remain for all other types of visits, selected on the basis of history, exam, and MDM, such as hospital services, nursing facility services, and home and domiciliary care. So, say goodbye to “all other systems reviewed and negative” in office notes, but keep it handy for those other E/M codes.

2. All time spent caring for the patient on a particular day counts

This includes all time spent on the day of service, including preparing to see the patient, seeing the patient, phone calls or other work done after the visit (if not billed with a care management or other CPT code), and documenting in the medical record. The AMA developed new guidelines for using time for office and other outpatient services. For codes 99202-99215, count all of the face-to-face and non–face-to-face time spent by the billing clinician on the day of the visit. Counseling does not need to be more than 50% of the total time.

Do not include any staff time or time spent on any days before or after the visit. This allows clinicians to capture the work when a significant amount of it takes place before or after the visit with the patient, and to bill for it on the day of the visit.

According to the 2021 CPT codebook, physician or other qualified health care professional time includes the following activities:

• Preparing to see the patient (e.g., review of tests).
• Obtaining and/or reviewing separately obtained history.
• Performing a medically appropriate examination and/or evaluation.
• Counseling and educating the patient/family/caregiver.
• Ordering medications, tests, or procedures.
• Referring and communicating with other health care professionals (when not separately reported).
• Documenting clinical information in the electronic or other health record.
• Independently interpreting results (not separately reported) and communicating results to the patient/family/caregiver.
• Care coordination (not separately reported).

3. Soon to be gone: ‘new to the examiner’ and ‘workup planned’

The current guidelines don’t differentiate between a new problem to the clinician or an established problem to the clinician. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re hearing about a particular problem for the first time or the fifth time. The new office and outpatient services guidelines define problems only as they relate to the patient. For example, when selecting a level of service, a chronic problem with a mild exacerbation is the same level whether it’s the primary care physician seeing the patient for the 10th time to help manage her diabetes or the endocrinologist seeing the patient for the first time.

In the current guidelines (1995 and 1997), additional weight is given in selecting the level of MDM for a problem that’s new to the examiner with a workup planned, yet when the diagnostic test couldn’t be completed at the visit. This concept is gone from element of number and complexity of new problems. Ordering diagnostic tests is part of the second element, the amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.

4. Different guidelines if you need a history from a parent or other source

The new guidelines recognize the additional work required by the clinician when the patient is unable to give a history or when the practitioner doesn’t find the history to be reliable.

For example, in the case of a baby or child who is unable to give a history, the parent counts as an “independent historian,” according to the new guidelines. Likewise, for a patient with dementia, the caregiver counts as a historian. Note, however, that the criteria is not met simply because the patient is accompanied by another person. The additional weight in selecting the level of service is based on the patient being unable to give a reliable history.

Bottom line: In cases where patients are unable to communicate clearly, physicians or other providers should document the necessity of getting a complete history and who provided it.

5. A new spin on social determinants of health (SDoH)

In the risk of morbidity and/or mortality element, conditions described as “social determinants of health” are considered moderate complexity. SDoH are social and environmental factors that affect a patient’s health and medical outcomes. These include homelessness, inability to afford medications, food insecurity, and occupational exposure to risk factors. These circumstances are reported with codes in categories Z55-Z65.

In the past, physicians often documented this information in their office notes but rarely added a diagnosis code that described the patient’s situation. The ICD-10-CM code set includes codes that describe these factors. Using them allows the practice to track patients who have increased needs, and it communicates to payers the complexity of caring for these patients.

6. Risks related to surgery are defined

The current guidelines assign different levels of risk to minor and major surgery. They also include differentiation for “minor surgery with no identified risk factors,” “minor surgery with identified risk factors,” “elective major surgery with no identified risk factors,” and “elective major surgery with identified risk factors.” The old guidelines didn’t state whether the risk factors pertained to the patient – such as smoking, heart disease, or high body mass index – or to the procedure itself.

The new guidelines specifically say that it’s both. In the risk column, “decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding elective major surgery without patient or procedure risk factors” are both considered moderate. “Decision regarding elective major surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding emergency major surgery” are in the high complexity column for risk.

Keep in mind that two of three elements are required: the number and complexity of problems, amount of data, and morbidity/mortality risk. Risk of morbidity/mortality alone doesn’t count as the basis for selecting the code. Of course, when surgeons see this, they ask, “What major procedures don’t have identified risk factors?”

Note, too, that these new CPT guidelines do not define the terms “minor” and “major” surgery. For payment reasons related to the postop period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services defines minor surgery as a procedure with 0-10 global days and a major surgery as a procedure with 90 global days. However, there are many procedures with 0 global days (endoscopy, cardiac catheterization) that are not minor procedures. Hopefully, the AMA will clarify this in 2021.
 

What’s the take-away for clinicians?

There are sure to be shifts in coding patterns based on these new guidelines. Some specialties will find that not being able to select a service based on history and exam alone will lower the level of service for which they can bill. Some practices, on the other hand, will be able to code for more high-level visits, without the need for a complete review of systems or a comprehensive exam.

The biggest challenge will be for practices that provide services both in the hospital and in the office, because they’ll have to use both sets of guidelines, depending on which type of service they’re performing.

For more details on what’s coming your way beginning on New Year’s Day, you may want to read the 16-page AMA document .
 

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

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it to gtwachtman@mdedge.com.

Physicians will soon start having an easier time – and perhaps get paid more money – when they code for evaluation and management (E/M) services, thanks to the American Medical Association.

The first major changes to the definitions for E/M services will be in effect as of Jan. 1, 2021, with all payers expected to adopt these new guidelines. In particular, the AMA has revised the definitions for E/M codes 99202-99215 in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2021 codebook. The existing guidelines were developed in 1995 and 1997 and remain in effect for all other E/M services determined by history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).

What do the new changes mean to you? In 2021, for new and established office and other outpatient services reported with codes 99202-99215, a clinician may select the code on the basis of time or MDM.

There are three elements in MDM, and two of three are required. These elements are the number and complexity of problems addressed, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management.

Make sure you familiarize yourself with these six big changes. It may take a bit of time to integrate these new processes into your daily routine, but wrapping your head around them as soon as possible can help boost your bottom line:
 

1. History and exam don’t count toward level of service

Physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants won’t use history or exam to select what level of code to bill for office visits 99202-99215, as they did in the past. They need only document a medically appropriate history and exam. The history may be obtained by staff members and reviewed by the billing practitioner.

While specific history and exam requirements disappear for office visit codes, they remain for all other types of visits, selected on the basis of history, exam, and MDM, such as hospital services, nursing facility services, and home and domiciliary care. So, say goodbye to “all other systems reviewed and negative” in office notes, but keep it handy for those other E/M codes.

2. All time spent caring for the patient on a particular day counts

This includes all time spent on the day of service, including preparing to see the patient, seeing the patient, phone calls or other work done after the visit (if not billed with a care management or other CPT code), and documenting in the medical record. The AMA developed new guidelines for using time for office and other outpatient services. For codes 99202-99215, count all of the face-to-face and non–face-to-face time spent by the billing clinician on the day of the visit. Counseling does not need to be more than 50% of the total time.

Do not include any staff time or time spent on any days before or after the visit. This allows clinicians to capture the work when a significant amount of it takes place before or after the visit with the patient, and to bill for it on the day of the visit.

According to the 2021 CPT codebook, physician or other qualified health care professional time includes the following activities:

• Preparing to see the patient (e.g., review of tests).
• Obtaining and/or reviewing separately obtained history.
• Performing a medically appropriate examination and/or evaluation.
• Counseling and educating the patient/family/caregiver.
• Ordering medications, tests, or procedures.
• Referring and communicating with other health care professionals (when not separately reported).
• Documenting clinical information in the electronic or other health record.
• Independently interpreting results (not separately reported) and communicating results to the patient/family/caregiver.
• Care coordination (not separately reported).

3. Soon to be gone: ‘new to the examiner’ and ‘workup planned’

The current guidelines don’t differentiate between a new problem to the clinician or an established problem to the clinician. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re hearing about a particular problem for the first time or the fifth time. The new office and outpatient services guidelines define problems only as they relate to the patient. For example, when selecting a level of service, a chronic problem with a mild exacerbation is the same level whether it’s the primary care physician seeing the patient for the 10th time to help manage her diabetes or the endocrinologist seeing the patient for the first time.

In the current guidelines (1995 and 1997), additional weight is given in selecting the level of MDM for a problem that’s new to the examiner with a workup planned, yet when the diagnostic test couldn’t be completed at the visit. This concept is gone from element of number and complexity of new problems. Ordering diagnostic tests is part of the second element, the amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed.

4. Different guidelines if you need a history from a parent or other source

The new guidelines recognize the additional work required by the clinician when the patient is unable to give a history or when the practitioner doesn’t find the history to be reliable.

For example, in the case of a baby or child who is unable to give a history, the parent counts as an “independent historian,” according to the new guidelines. Likewise, for a patient with dementia, the caregiver counts as a historian. Note, however, that the criteria is not met simply because the patient is accompanied by another person. The additional weight in selecting the level of service is based on the patient being unable to give a reliable history.

Bottom line: In cases where patients are unable to communicate clearly, physicians or other providers should document the necessity of getting a complete history and who provided it.

5. A new spin on social determinants of health (SDoH)

In the risk of morbidity and/or mortality element, conditions described as “social determinants of health” are considered moderate complexity. SDoH are social and environmental factors that affect a patient’s health and medical outcomes. These include homelessness, inability to afford medications, food insecurity, and occupational exposure to risk factors. These circumstances are reported with codes in categories Z55-Z65.

In the past, physicians often documented this information in their office notes but rarely added a diagnosis code that described the patient’s situation. The ICD-10-CM code set includes codes that describe these factors. Using them allows the practice to track patients who have increased needs, and it communicates to payers the complexity of caring for these patients.

6. Risks related to surgery are defined

The current guidelines assign different levels of risk to minor and major surgery. They also include differentiation for “minor surgery with no identified risk factors,” “minor surgery with identified risk factors,” “elective major surgery with no identified risk factors,” and “elective major surgery with identified risk factors.” The old guidelines didn’t state whether the risk factors pertained to the patient – such as smoking, heart disease, or high body mass index – or to the procedure itself.

The new guidelines specifically say that it’s both. In the risk column, “decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding elective major surgery without patient or procedure risk factors” are both considered moderate. “Decision regarding elective major surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors” and “decision regarding emergency major surgery” are in the high complexity column for risk.

Keep in mind that two of three elements are required: the number and complexity of problems, amount of data, and morbidity/mortality risk. Risk of morbidity/mortality alone doesn’t count as the basis for selecting the code. Of course, when surgeons see this, they ask, “What major procedures don’t have identified risk factors?”

Note, too, that these new CPT guidelines do not define the terms “minor” and “major” surgery. For payment reasons related to the postop period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services defines minor surgery as a procedure with 0-10 global days and a major surgery as a procedure with 90 global days. However, there are many procedures with 0 global days (endoscopy, cardiac catheterization) that are not minor procedures. Hopefully, the AMA will clarify this in 2021.
 

What’s the take-away for clinicians?

There are sure to be shifts in coding patterns based on these new guidelines. Some specialties will find that not being able to select a service based on history and exam alone will lower the level of service for which they can bill. Some practices, on the other hand, will be able to code for more high-level visits, without the need for a complete review of systems or a comprehensive exam.

The biggest challenge will be for practices that provide services both in the hospital and in the office, because they’ll have to use both sets of guidelines, depending on which type of service they’re performing.

For more details on what’s coming your way beginning on New Year’s Day, you may want to read the 16-page AMA document .
 

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

UPDATED DECEMBER 17

A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”

The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.

The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.

“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.

At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.

Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.

Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.

“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.

The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.


 

Challenging a standard

The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.

PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.

“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.

At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.

“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.

He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on

the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.

In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.

“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”

Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:

• An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
• Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
• Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.

Opening a floodgate?

Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.

“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.

Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.

Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.

Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
 

UPDATED DECEMBER 17

A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”

The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.

The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.

“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.

At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.

Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.

Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.

“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.

The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.


 

Challenging a standard

The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.

PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.

“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.

At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.

“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.

He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on

the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.

In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.

“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”

Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:

• An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
• Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
• Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.

Opening a floodgate?

Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.

“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.

Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.

Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.

Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
 

UPDATED DECEMBER 17

A panel of federal advisers on Tuesday effectively backed a bid to expand approval of sacubitril/valsartan for use in a form of heart failure for which there is not yet an approved medication.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee to broadly consider whether new analyses of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, combined with other information, could support use of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The advisory committee voted 12-1 on this question, which can be seen as a marker for an expanded approval: “Does PARAGON-HF, perhaps supported by previous studies, provide sufficient evidence to support any indication?”

The dissenting vote was cast by the panel’s chairperson, Julia B. Lewis, MD, a professor of medicine from Vanderbilt University. In explaining her vote, Dr. Lewis cited concerns about expanding use of the drug, which has a potential for hypotension. But she noted that the rest of the panelists were “impressed by the totality of the evidence” presented, including a willingness to take a new look at the PARAGON-HF trial. This study was perceived at first pass as having failed to prove a benefit for people with HFpEF.

The 2019 initial unveiling of the PARAGON-HF results had dampened hopes for an evidence-based drug therapy for HFpEF. Patients treated with the first-of-its-kind renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor, compared with those who received standard valsartan, had 13% fewer heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) deaths over an average of about 3 years, but the difference missed significance at a P value of .059.

“Everybody agreed that the P value of .05 was not written in stone,” Dr. Lewis said in summarizing the panelists’ views on the voting question.

At the FDA’s request, the panel also addressed several other questions without voting on them. The agency asked the panel to describe the patient population for whom an expanded approval would be appropriate. The FDA initially approved sacubitril/valsartan in 2015 to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA Class II-IV) and reduced ejection fraction.

Novartis in April submitted an application to the FDA, seeking to expand the use of sacubitril/valsartan from the currently approved indication for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to include what the company terms “the adjacent population of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.” The American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging define normal LVEF and normal range (±2 standard deviations) as 62% (range, 52%-72%) in men and 64% (range, 54%-74%) in women, Novartis said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

FDA panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, for example, suggested that an expanded approval could allow for use of sacubitril/valsartan for the reduction of heart failure or hospitalization in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction as defined by greater than 45% through 55%. FDA panelist C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, director of the Barbra Streisand Women’s Heart Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, suggested extending this to 57% to acknowledge the higher threshold for women.

Another FDA panelist, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, argued against use of imprecise terms in defining an expanded patient population for sacubitril/valsartan. If used in the right patient population, the drug could provide a benefit for people who have active heart failure with symptoms, including preventing hospitalizations and renal disease, he said.

“If you are symptomatic with a syndrome that’s consistent with heart failure and you have an ejection fraction below the lower limits of normal, I believe it’s in the public interest for you to get sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Nissen said.

The FDA usually follows the advice of its panels, but is not obligated to. But in this case, the agency staff were clearly seeking a path for an expanded approval of sacubitril/valsartan.


 

Challenging a standard

The FDA had encouraged Novartis to submit the supplementary application for the HFpEF indication and even suggested some of the post-hoc analyses, the agency staff said in a briefing document for the meeting.

PARAGON-HF illustrated some of the agency’s concerns about missed opportunities in general in large research trials. Some events of interest in studies may be miscounted due to a lack of information such as a requirement for the presence of physical examination findings that are not documented in the patient’s dossier, the FDA staff said.

“We would like to consider giving ‘partial credit’ to events based on the level of evidence provided, e.g., use of an ordinal variable rather than a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ ” the staff said in the briefing document.

At the panel meeting, Norman Stockbridge, MD, PhD, director of the Division of Cardiology and Nephrology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told the panelists there is no basis in law for setting a P value of .05 as the benchmark on whether to declare a trial a success or failure.

“I wanted to take a few minutes and make sure that you on the committee understands what flexibility you have in addressing the case study in question,” Dr. Stockbridge said at the start of the meeting.

He then reviewed cases where the FDA had approved claims for cardiac medicines that had not shown desired results in key tests. These include approval of enalapril for use in asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction on the basis of the SOLVD-Prevention trial, approval of digoxin for heart failure on the basis of the DIG study, and approval of carvedilol for reduced ejection fraction following myocardial infarction on

the basis of the CAPRICORN study, Dr. Stockbridge said.

In reviewing the data for sacubitril/valsartan, FDA staff noted a similarity between investigator-reported and adjudicated results, Stockbridge said.

“This suggested that there were events that did not need all evidentiary criteria as qualified events, but likely were nonetheless,” he said. “This is an example of dichotomization of events being wasteful of information.”

Post-hoc exploratory analyses in PARAGON-HF were able to meet the commonly used standard, according to the FDA briefing document. Among the key findings of these analyses were:

• An analysis of investigator-reported events for the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular (CV) death demonstrated a rate ratio (RR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74- 0.97; P = .01).
• Investigator-reported events added 226 and 290 HHF events but decreased CV death by 56 and 58 events in the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively. Hence, a net 170 and 232 events were added to the clinical endpoint committee–reported primary composite endpoint leading to a P value of .01, without a significant change in RR.
• Analysis of investigator-reported expanded primary composite endpoint events including total HHF, urgent HF visits, and CV death demonstrated a RR of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .006. There were 136 and 173 investigator-reported urgent HF events in sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan arms, respectively.

Opening a floodgate?

Cynthia L. Chauhan, MSW, of Wichita, Kansas, who served as the consumer representative on the panel, questioned whether a decision to revisit the data on PARAGON-HF might lead drugmakers to seek to repurpose other failed trials.

“Are we opening any kind of floodgate for other researchers to go back and see this is an invitation to try to, for want of a better term, back-door their way into some approvals?” Ms. Chauhan asked.

Dr. Nissen assured her that this concern was valid and would be considered. The goal would be to allow some flexibility in cases that merit further consideration, while preventing companies from data mining until they find some evidence to support an FDA application, he said.

Re-analyzing trials “should be done carefully, conservatively, and only when it really is compelling that the public interest supports it,” Dr. Nissen stressed.

Panelists reported no conflicts of interest related to the topic of the meeting.
 

All pediatricians are relieved that the rates of children smoking cigarettes has dropped steadily since 2011. This decline seems to be associated with education on the dangers of cigarettes and fewer parents smoking. Perhaps less modeling of cigarette use in movies (although it increased again from 2010 to 2019) and lawsuits against advertisements targeting children also has helped.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Vaping increases the risk of severe COVID-19 disease

While EVALI deaths dropped in months after being explained, the COVID-19 epidemic is now a much greater threat to vapers. Vaping, smoking, and even second-hand smoke are associated with a greater likelihood of infection with COVID-19. Vaping increases risk of severe COVID-19 disease because of its immediate paralysis of lung cilia. Sharing vape devices and touching one’s lips while using also increase the risk of virus transmission. Vaping and smoking increase the number of ACE2 receptors to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus attaches causing the characteristic cell damage, and suppresses macrophages and neutrophils, resulting in more smokers testing positive, being twice as likely to develop a severe illness and get hospitalized because of pneumonia from COVID-19, and being less likely to recover. Unfortunately, addressing this new threat to the immediate and long-term health of our patients appears to be more complicated than for addressing smoking tobacco. First of all, vaping is much more difficult to detect than smelly cigarettes sending smoke signals from behind the garage or in the school bathrooms. Many, if not most, adults do not recognize the vaping devices when they see them, as many are tiny and some look like computer thumb drives. The aerosol emitted when in use, while containing dangerous toxins, has less odor than tobacco smoke. Vaping equipment and ads have been designed to attract youth, including linking them to sports and music events. Vaping has been advertised as a way to wean off nicotine addiction, a claim that has some scientific evidence in adults, but at a lower dose of nicotine. Warning children about the dangers of marijuana vaping has been made less credible by the rapid expansion of legalization of marijuana around the United States, eliciting “I told you it was fine” reactions from youth. And the person vaping does not know what or how much of the psychoactive components are being delivered into their bodies. One Juul pod, for example, has the equivalent in nicotine of an entire pack of 20 cigarettes. They are highly addictive, especially to the developing brain, such that youth who vape are more likely to become addicted and to smoke cigarettes in the future.

Help from federal regulation has been weak

While all 50 states ban sales to youth, adults can still buy. Food and Drug Administration limitations on kid-friendly ads, and use of sweet, fruity, and mint flavorings that are most preferred by children, apply only to new producers. The FDA does not yet regulate content of vaping solutions.

So we pediatricians are on the front line for this new threat to prevent vaping or convince youth to cut down or quit. The first step in addressing vaping is being knowledgeable about its many known and emerging health risks. It may seem obvious that the dangers of vaping microscopic particles depends on the contents. Water vapor alone is not dangerous; in fact, we prescribe it in nebulizers. Unfortunately, the contents of different vaping products vary and are not well defined in different vape products. The process of using an electric current to vaporize a substance can make it more toxic than the precursor, and teens have little idea about the substances they are inhaling. The psychoactive components vary from nicotine to tetrahydrocannabinol in varying amounts. These have the well known effects of stimulation or a high, but also the potential adverse effects of poor concentration, agitation, and even psychosis. Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early- to mid-20s. About two-thirds of Juul users aged 15-24 years did not know that it always contains nicotine, as do 99% of all vape solutions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Earlier use of nicotine is more highly associated with later addiction to tobacco products that cause lung damage, acid reflux, insulin resistance, harm to the testes, harm to fetuses, cancer, and heart disease.

E-cigarette aerosols also contain dozens of other harmful substances besides nicotine ranging from acetone, propylene glycol, and metals to formaldehyde and ethyl benzene. These same chemicals are part of familiar toxic substances such as antifreeze, paint thinner, and pesticides. These cause ear, eye and throat irritation, and impairments in the cardiovascular system reducing athletic ability – at the least. Some flavorings in vape fluids also are toxic. Even the residual left on furniture and floors is harmful to those coming in contact, including pets.
 

How to encourage teens not to vaping

Trying to scare youth about health hazards is not generally effective in stopping risk behaviors since adolescence is a time of perceived singularity (it does not apply to me) and even a sense of immortality. Teens also see peers who vape as being unaffected and decide on using based on this small personal sample instead of valid statistics.

But teens do pay some attention to peer models or influencers saying why they do not use. One source of such testimony you can refer to is videos of inspiring athletes, musicians, and other “cool” young adults found on the naturalhigh.org website. You may know other examples of community teens desisting you can reference.

Parent rules, and less so advice, against smoking have been shown to be effective in deterring youth cigarette smoking. Because parents are less aware of vaping and its dangers, another step we can take is educating parents in our practices about vaping, its variable forms, its effects, and dangers, supplying authoritative materials, and advising them to talk with their children. Other steps the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends regarding smoking is for parents to be a role model of not using or try to quit, designate the house and car as smoking free, avoid children viewing smoking in media, tell their children about the side effects, and encourage their children who use to quit. Parents also can encourage schools to teach and have rules about smoking and vaping (e.g., med.stanford.edu/tobaccopreventiontoolkit.html).

Another approach we have been using is to not only screen for all substance use, but also to gather information about the teen’s strengths, activities, and life goals both to enhance rapport and to reference during motivational interviewing as reasons to avoid, reduce, or quit vaping. Motivational interviewing has been shown to help patients make healthier lifestyle choices by nonjudgmentally exploring their pros and cons in a conversation that takes into account readiness to change. This fits well with the stage of developing autonomy when teens want above all to make their own decisions. The cons of using can be discussed as including the effects and side effects of vaping interfering with their favored activities and moving towards their identified goals. Praising abstinence and asking them to show you how they could decline offers to vape are valuable reinforcement you can provide.

Finally, we all know that teens hate being manipulated. Vaping education we provide can make it clear that youth are being tricked by companies – most being large cigarette producers who know the dangers of vaping – into getting addicted so these companies can get rich on their money.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

All pediatricians are relieved that the rates of children smoking cigarettes has dropped steadily since 2011. This decline seems to be associated with education on the dangers of cigarettes and fewer parents smoking. Perhaps less modeling of cigarette use in movies (although it increased again from 2010 to 2019) and lawsuits against advertisements targeting children also has helped.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Vaping increases the risk of severe COVID-19 disease

While EVALI deaths dropped in months after being explained, the COVID-19 epidemic is now a much greater threat to vapers. Vaping, smoking, and even second-hand smoke are associated with a greater likelihood of infection with COVID-19. Vaping increases risk of severe COVID-19 disease because of its immediate paralysis of lung cilia. Sharing vape devices and touching one’s lips while using also increase the risk of virus transmission. Vaping and smoking increase the number of ACE2 receptors to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus attaches causing the characteristic cell damage, and suppresses macrophages and neutrophils, resulting in more smokers testing positive, being twice as likely to develop a severe illness and get hospitalized because of pneumonia from COVID-19, and being less likely to recover. Unfortunately, addressing this new threat to the immediate and long-term health of our patients appears to be more complicated than for addressing smoking tobacco. First of all, vaping is much more difficult to detect than smelly cigarettes sending smoke signals from behind the garage or in the school bathrooms. Many, if not most, adults do not recognize the vaping devices when they see them, as many are tiny and some look like computer thumb drives. The aerosol emitted when in use, while containing dangerous toxins, has less odor than tobacco smoke. Vaping equipment and ads have been designed to attract youth, including linking them to sports and music events. Vaping has been advertised as a way to wean off nicotine addiction, a claim that has some scientific evidence in adults, but at a lower dose of nicotine. Warning children about the dangers of marijuana vaping has been made less credible by the rapid expansion of legalization of marijuana around the United States, eliciting “I told you it was fine” reactions from youth. And the person vaping does not know what or how much of the psychoactive components are being delivered into their bodies. One Juul pod, for example, has the equivalent in nicotine of an entire pack of 20 cigarettes. They are highly addictive, especially to the developing brain, such that youth who vape are more likely to become addicted and to smoke cigarettes in the future.

Help from federal regulation has been weak

While all 50 states ban sales to youth, adults can still buy. Food and Drug Administration limitations on kid-friendly ads, and use of sweet, fruity, and mint flavorings that are most preferred by children, apply only to new producers. The FDA does not yet regulate content of vaping solutions.

So we pediatricians are on the front line for this new threat to prevent vaping or convince youth to cut down or quit. The first step in addressing vaping is being knowledgeable about its many known and emerging health risks. It may seem obvious that the dangers of vaping microscopic particles depends on the contents. Water vapor alone is not dangerous; in fact, we prescribe it in nebulizers. Unfortunately, the contents of different vaping products vary and are not well defined in different vape products. The process of using an electric current to vaporize a substance can make it more toxic than the precursor, and teens have little idea about the substances they are inhaling. The psychoactive components vary from nicotine to tetrahydrocannabinol in varying amounts. These have the well known effects of stimulation or a high, but also the potential adverse effects of poor concentration, agitation, and even psychosis. Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early- to mid-20s. About two-thirds of Juul users aged 15-24 years did not know that it always contains nicotine, as do 99% of all vape solutions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Earlier use of nicotine is more highly associated with later addiction to tobacco products that cause lung damage, acid reflux, insulin resistance, harm to the testes, harm to fetuses, cancer, and heart disease.

E-cigarette aerosols also contain dozens of other harmful substances besides nicotine ranging from acetone, propylene glycol, and metals to formaldehyde and ethyl benzene. These same chemicals are part of familiar toxic substances such as antifreeze, paint thinner, and pesticides. These cause ear, eye and throat irritation, and impairments in the cardiovascular system reducing athletic ability – at the least. Some flavorings in vape fluids also are toxic. Even the residual left on furniture and floors is harmful to those coming in contact, including pets.
 

How to encourage teens not to vaping

Trying to scare youth about health hazards is not generally effective in stopping risk behaviors since adolescence is a time of perceived singularity (it does not apply to me) and even a sense of immortality. Teens also see peers who vape as being unaffected and decide on using based on this small personal sample instead of valid statistics.

But teens do pay some attention to peer models or influencers saying why they do not use. One source of such testimony you can refer to is videos of inspiring athletes, musicians, and other “cool” young adults found on the naturalhigh.org website. You may know other examples of community teens desisting you can reference.

Parent rules, and less so advice, against smoking have been shown to be effective in deterring youth cigarette smoking. Because parents are less aware of vaping and its dangers, another step we can take is educating parents in our practices about vaping, its variable forms, its effects, and dangers, supplying authoritative materials, and advising them to talk with their children. Other steps the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends regarding smoking is for parents to be a role model of not using or try to quit, designate the house and car as smoking free, avoid children viewing smoking in media, tell their children about the side effects, and encourage their children who use to quit. Parents also can encourage schools to teach and have rules about smoking and vaping (e.g., med.stanford.edu/tobaccopreventiontoolkit.html).

Another approach we have been using is to not only screen for all substance use, but also to gather information about the teen’s strengths, activities, and life goals both to enhance rapport and to reference during motivational interviewing as reasons to avoid, reduce, or quit vaping. Motivational interviewing has been shown to help patients make healthier lifestyle choices by nonjudgmentally exploring their pros and cons in a conversation that takes into account readiness to change. This fits well with the stage of developing autonomy when teens want above all to make their own decisions. The cons of using can be discussed as including the effects and side effects of vaping interfering with their favored activities and moving towards their identified goals. Praising abstinence and asking them to show you how they could decline offers to vape are valuable reinforcement you can provide.

Finally, we all know that teens hate being manipulated. Vaping education we provide can make it clear that youth are being tricked by companies – most being large cigarette producers who know the dangers of vaping – into getting addicted so these companies can get rich on their money.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

All pediatricians are relieved that the rates of children smoking cigarettes has dropped steadily since 2011. This decline seems to be associated with education on the dangers of cigarettes and fewer parents smoking. Perhaps less modeling of cigarette use in movies (although it increased again from 2010 to 2019) and lawsuits against advertisements targeting children also has helped.

licsiren/iStock/Getty Images

Vaping increases the risk of severe COVID-19 disease

While EVALI deaths dropped in months after being explained, the COVID-19 epidemic is now a much greater threat to vapers. Vaping, smoking, and even second-hand smoke are associated with a greater likelihood of infection with COVID-19. Vaping increases risk of severe COVID-19 disease because of its immediate paralysis of lung cilia. Sharing vape devices and touching one’s lips while using also increase the risk of virus transmission. Vaping and smoking increase the number of ACE2 receptors to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus attaches causing the characteristic cell damage, and suppresses macrophages and neutrophils, resulting in more smokers testing positive, being twice as likely to develop a severe illness and get hospitalized because of pneumonia from COVID-19, and being less likely to recover. Unfortunately, addressing this new threat to the immediate and long-term health of our patients appears to be more complicated than for addressing smoking tobacco. First of all, vaping is much more difficult to detect than smelly cigarettes sending smoke signals from behind the garage or in the school bathrooms. Many, if not most, adults do not recognize the vaping devices when they see them, as many are tiny and some look like computer thumb drives. The aerosol emitted when in use, while containing dangerous toxins, has less odor than tobacco smoke. Vaping equipment and ads have been designed to attract youth, including linking them to sports and music events. Vaping has been advertised as a way to wean off nicotine addiction, a claim that has some scientific evidence in adults, but at a lower dose of nicotine. Warning children about the dangers of marijuana vaping has been made less credible by the rapid expansion of legalization of marijuana around the United States, eliciting “I told you it was fine” reactions from youth. And the person vaping does not know what or how much of the psychoactive components are being delivered into their bodies. One Juul pod, for example, has the equivalent in nicotine of an entire pack of 20 cigarettes. They are highly addictive, especially to the developing brain, such that youth who vape are more likely to become addicted and to smoke cigarettes in the future.

Help from federal regulation has been weak

While all 50 states ban sales to youth, adults can still buy. Food and Drug Administration limitations on kid-friendly ads, and use of sweet, fruity, and mint flavorings that are most preferred by children, apply only to new producers. The FDA does not yet regulate content of vaping solutions.

So we pediatricians are on the front line for this new threat to prevent vaping or convince youth to cut down or quit. The first step in addressing vaping is being knowledgeable about its many known and emerging health risks. It may seem obvious that the dangers of vaping microscopic particles depends on the contents. Water vapor alone is not dangerous; in fact, we prescribe it in nebulizers. Unfortunately, the contents of different vaping products vary and are not well defined in different vape products. The process of using an electric current to vaporize a substance can make it more toxic than the precursor, and teens have little idea about the substances they are inhaling. The psychoactive components vary from nicotine to tetrahydrocannabinol in varying amounts. These have the well known effects of stimulation or a high, but also the potential adverse effects of poor concentration, agitation, and even psychosis. Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early- to mid-20s. About two-thirds of Juul users aged 15-24 years did not know that it always contains nicotine, as do 99% of all vape solutions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Earlier use of nicotine is more highly associated with later addiction to tobacco products that cause lung damage, acid reflux, insulin resistance, harm to the testes, harm to fetuses, cancer, and heart disease.

E-cigarette aerosols also contain dozens of other harmful substances besides nicotine ranging from acetone, propylene glycol, and metals to formaldehyde and ethyl benzene. These same chemicals are part of familiar toxic substances such as antifreeze, paint thinner, and pesticides. These cause ear, eye and throat irritation, and impairments in the cardiovascular system reducing athletic ability – at the least. Some flavorings in vape fluids also are toxic. Even the residual left on furniture and floors is harmful to those coming in contact, including pets.
 

How to encourage teens not to vaping

Trying to scare youth about health hazards is not generally effective in stopping risk behaviors since adolescence is a time of perceived singularity (it does not apply to me) and even a sense of immortality. Teens also see peers who vape as being unaffected and decide on using based on this small personal sample instead of valid statistics.

But teens do pay some attention to peer models or influencers saying why they do not use. One source of such testimony you can refer to is videos of inspiring athletes, musicians, and other “cool” young adults found on the naturalhigh.org website. You may know other examples of community teens desisting you can reference.

Parent rules, and less so advice, against smoking have been shown to be effective in deterring youth cigarette smoking. Because parents are less aware of vaping and its dangers, another step we can take is educating parents in our practices about vaping, its variable forms, its effects, and dangers, supplying authoritative materials, and advising them to talk with their children. Other steps the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends regarding smoking is for parents to be a role model of not using or try to quit, designate the house and car as smoking free, avoid children viewing smoking in media, tell their children about the side effects, and encourage their children who use to quit. Parents also can encourage schools to teach and have rules about smoking and vaping (e.g., med.stanford.edu/tobaccopreventiontoolkit.html).

Another approach we have been using is to not only screen for all substance use, but also to gather information about the teen’s strengths, activities, and life goals both to enhance rapport and to reference during motivational interviewing as reasons to avoid, reduce, or quit vaping. Motivational interviewing has been shown to help patients make healthier lifestyle choices by nonjudgmentally exploring their pros and cons in a conversation that takes into account readiness to change. This fits well with the stage of developing autonomy when teens want above all to make their own decisions. The cons of using can be discussed as including the effects and side effects of vaping interfering with their favored activities and moving towards their identified goals. Praising abstinence and asking them to show you how they could decline offers to vape are valuable reinforcement you can provide.

Finally, we all know that teens hate being manipulated. Vaping education we provide can make it clear that youth are being tricked by companies – most being large cigarette producers who know the dangers of vaping – into getting addicted so these companies can get rich on their money.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A long-awaited update to asthma management guidelines, developed by an expert panel at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, has been released.

Courtesy University of Wisconsin Health System

The updated guidelines address six priority topics, including refined recommendations for the use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and bronchial thermoplasty, but notably exclude any recommendations for the use of fast-emerging biological therapy.

“Biological therapy is the major step forward,” said William W. Busse, MD, professor of allergy and immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and lead author of the previous guidelines (Bethesda, Md.: NHLBI, 2007). “It wasn’t within the scope of work, so it’s not a criticism, but it is an important shortcoming,” he said. The omission identifies the need for the next update. “This is an area that has to be dealt with,” Dr. Busse stated in an interview.

Including biologic agents would have delayed the release of the recommendations for another year or 2, wrote the expert panel working group of the NHLBI, “and this was felt to be unacceptable.” The working group, overseen by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee, also acknowledged the update is “not a complete revision” of the 2007 guidelines.

The update provides an evidenced-based review of six key topics in asthma care, as Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, professor of pediatrics at New York University Long Island, Mineola, pointed out: use of FeNO, indoor allergen mitigation, use of intermittent ICS and LAMA for asthma, role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma, and the use of bronchial thermoplasty.

“It has been 13 years since the last update and substantial progress has been made since then in understanding how to best treat children and adults with asthma,” said working group member Michael Schatz, MD, MS, FCCP, an allergy specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Diego.

According to Dr. Schatz, the most important updated recommendations are:

• Conditional recommendation for the use of ICS in children aged infant to 4 years with recurrent wheezing with respiratory infections.
• Use of combination ICS-formoterol for maintenance and to relieve flares in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
• Addition of the LAMA inhaled bronchodilator as add-on therapy for severe asthma not controlled by long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/ICS combination medications.

Another important update, Dr. Cataletto said, is “shared decision-making among members of asthma teams in order to improve asthma care across all age groups.”

In all, the update includes 19 recommendations in the six subject areas. Each recommendation is notated with two values: its strength, either strong or conditional, and the certainty of evidence behind it, either low, moderate, or high. For example, the recommendation for ICS in young children that Dr. Schatz referred to has a conditional strength of recommendation with moderate certainty of evidence.

Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology to determine strength of recommendation is a notable innovation of the latest guidelines, Dr. Busse noted.

Recommendations (strength of recommendation/certainty of evidence) include:

• Use of FeNO in children and adults when the asthma diagnosis is uncertain (conditional/moderate) or in those with allergic asthma and an uncertain course of management (conditional/low).
• Avoid standalone FeNO to evaluate asthma control or the likelihood or severity of future exacerbations, or for in infants to 4-year-olds with recurrent wheezing (strong/low for both).
• Avoid allergen mitigation in routine asthma management for patients who don’t have sensitivity to specific indoor allergens (conditional/low).
• Multicomponent allergen-specific mitigation when specific allergen sensitivity has been identified and pest management alone for symptoms related to specific pest exposure (conditional/low for both).
• Impermeable bedding covers should be part of a multicomponent mitigation strategy, not as a standalone tool, for patients with asthma and dust mite sensitivity (conditional/moderate).
• Daily ICS at onset of a respiratory tract infection along with as-needed short-acting beta-agonists in children aged 4 years and younger with recurrent wheezing but no wheezing between infections rather than as-needed standalone SABA (conditional/high).
• For adults and children aged 12 years and older with mild persistent asthma, either daily low-dose ICS with as-needed SABA or as-needed ICS and SABA concomitantly (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid short-course increased ICS dosing for patients aged 4 years and older with good adherence to daily ICS therapy (conditional/low).
• For patients aged 4 years and older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, a preference for combined ICS-formoterol inhaler over higher dose ICS daily and intermittent SABA or daily ICS-LABA with intermittent SABA (strong/high [aged 12 years and older]; moderate [aged 4-11 years]).
• A preference for combined ICS-formoterol for both daily and relief therapy for patients 12 years and older with severe persistent asthma over higher-dose ICS-LABA daily and intermittent SABA (conditional/high).
• A preference for adding LABA rather than LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma (conditional/moderate).
• If LABA isn’t used, add LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma rather than continuing the same dose of ICS alone (conditional/moderate).
• In those same patients already on combined ICS-LABA therapy, add LAMA rather than continuing the same dose of ICS-LABA (conditional/moderate).
• Use subcutaneous immunotherapy as a potential adjunct to standard drug therapy in patients aged 5 years and older with mild to moderate allergic asthma when their asthma is controlled on immunotherapy (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid sublingual immunotherapy in patients with persistent allergic asthma (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid bronchial thermoplasty in those 18 years and older with persistent asthma, but consider it in patients who can accept the short-term worsening symptoms or unknown long-term side effects in exchange for the potential benefits (conditional/moderate).

One of the key elements of the guidelines is the use of the SMART (single maintenance and reliever therapy) approach to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of intermittent ICS with formoterol, Dr. Busse noted. “I think that’s a very significant advance. The literature is replete with evidence to support this. Secondly, it really makes life convenient for patients; you have one inhaler.”

The recommendation on SABA use is also significant, Dr. Busse said. “Data have emerged to suggest that if you’re having a need for one of these rescue medications, it’s due to an increase in inflammation in the lower airway, and you want to give an ICS which will act on the inflammation along with the bronchodilator. That’s a new concept, and it’s a very significant step forward.”

Dr. Schatz disclosed financial relationships with Merck, Teva, and ALK-Abello, but was recused from the writing, discussion, and voting related to the immunotherapy recommendation. Dr. Cataletto and Dr. Busse have no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Schatz M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:1217-70.

A long-awaited update to asthma management guidelines, developed by an expert panel at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, has been released.

Courtesy University of Wisconsin Health System

The updated guidelines address six priority topics, including refined recommendations for the use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and bronchial thermoplasty, but notably exclude any recommendations for the use of fast-emerging biological therapy.

“Biological therapy is the major step forward,” said William W. Busse, MD, professor of allergy and immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and lead author of the previous guidelines (Bethesda, Md.: NHLBI, 2007). “It wasn’t within the scope of work, so it’s not a criticism, but it is an important shortcoming,” he said. The omission identifies the need for the next update. “This is an area that has to be dealt with,” Dr. Busse stated in an interview.

Including biologic agents would have delayed the release of the recommendations for another year or 2, wrote the expert panel working group of the NHLBI, “and this was felt to be unacceptable.” The working group, overseen by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee, also acknowledged the update is “not a complete revision” of the 2007 guidelines.

The update provides an evidenced-based review of six key topics in asthma care, as Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, professor of pediatrics at New York University Long Island, Mineola, pointed out: use of FeNO, indoor allergen mitigation, use of intermittent ICS and LAMA for asthma, role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma, and the use of bronchial thermoplasty.

“It has been 13 years since the last update and substantial progress has been made since then in understanding how to best treat children and adults with asthma,” said working group member Michael Schatz, MD, MS, FCCP, an allergy specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Diego.

According to Dr. Schatz, the most important updated recommendations are:

• Conditional recommendation for the use of ICS in children aged infant to 4 years with recurrent wheezing with respiratory infections.
• Use of combination ICS-formoterol for maintenance and to relieve flares in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
• Addition of the LAMA inhaled bronchodilator as add-on therapy for severe asthma not controlled by long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/ICS combination medications.

Another important update, Dr. Cataletto said, is “shared decision-making among members of asthma teams in order to improve asthma care across all age groups.”

In all, the update includes 19 recommendations in the six subject areas. Each recommendation is notated with two values: its strength, either strong or conditional, and the certainty of evidence behind it, either low, moderate, or high. For example, the recommendation for ICS in young children that Dr. Schatz referred to has a conditional strength of recommendation with moderate certainty of evidence.

Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology to determine strength of recommendation is a notable innovation of the latest guidelines, Dr. Busse noted.

Recommendations (strength of recommendation/certainty of evidence) include:

• Use of FeNO in children and adults when the asthma diagnosis is uncertain (conditional/moderate) or in those with allergic asthma and an uncertain course of management (conditional/low).
• Avoid standalone FeNO to evaluate asthma control or the likelihood or severity of future exacerbations, or for in infants to 4-year-olds with recurrent wheezing (strong/low for both).
• Avoid allergen mitigation in routine asthma management for patients who don’t have sensitivity to specific indoor allergens (conditional/low).
• Multicomponent allergen-specific mitigation when specific allergen sensitivity has been identified and pest management alone for symptoms related to specific pest exposure (conditional/low for both).
• Impermeable bedding covers should be part of a multicomponent mitigation strategy, not as a standalone tool, for patients with asthma and dust mite sensitivity (conditional/moderate).
• Daily ICS at onset of a respiratory tract infection along with as-needed short-acting beta-agonists in children aged 4 years and younger with recurrent wheezing but no wheezing between infections rather than as-needed standalone SABA (conditional/high).
• For adults and children aged 12 years and older with mild persistent asthma, either daily low-dose ICS with as-needed SABA or as-needed ICS and SABA concomitantly (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid short-course increased ICS dosing for patients aged 4 years and older with good adherence to daily ICS therapy (conditional/low).
• For patients aged 4 years and older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, a preference for combined ICS-formoterol inhaler over higher dose ICS daily and intermittent SABA or daily ICS-LABA with intermittent SABA (strong/high [aged 12 years and older]; moderate [aged 4-11 years]).
• A preference for combined ICS-formoterol for both daily and relief therapy for patients 12 years and older with severe persistent asthma over higher-dose ICS-LABA daily and intermittent SABA (conditional/high).
• A preference for adding LABA rather than LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma (conditional/moderate).
• If LABA isn’t used, add LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma rather than continuing the same dose of ICS alone (conditional/moderate).
• In those same patients already on combined ICS-LABA therapy, add LAMA rather than continuing the same dose of ICS-LABA (conditional/moderate).
• Use subcutaneous immunotherapy as a potential adjunct to standard drug therapy in patients aged 5 years and older with mild to moderate allergic asthma when their asthma is controlled on immunotherapy (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid sublingual immunotherapy in patients with persistent allergic asthma (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid bronchial thermoplasty in those 18 years and older with persistent asthma, but consider it in patients who can accept the short-term worsening symptoms or unknown long-term side effects in exchange for the potential benefits (conditional/moderate).

One of the key elements of the guidelines is the use of the SMART (single maintenance and reliever therapy) approach to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of intermittent ICS with formoterol, Dr. Busse noted. “I think that’s a very significant advance. The literature is replete with evidence to support this. Secondly, it really makes life convenient for patients; you have one inhaler.”

The recommendation on SABA use is also significant, Dr. Busse said. “Data have emerged to suggest that if you’re having a need for one of these rescue medications, it’s due to an increase in inflammation in the lower airway, and you want to give an ICS which will act on the inflammation along with the bronchodilator. That’s a new concept, and it’s a very significant step forward.”

Dr. Schatz disclosed financial relationships with Merck, Teva, and ALK-Abello, but was recused from the writing, discussion, and voting related to the immunotherapy recommendation. Dr. Cataletto and Dr. Busse have no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Schatz M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:1217-70.

A long-awaited update to asthma management guidelines, developed by an expert panel at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, has been released.

Courtesy University of Wisconsin Health System

The updated guidelines address six priority topics, including refined recommendations for the use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and bronchial thermoplasty, but notably exclude any recommendations for the use of fast-emerging biological therapy.

“Biological therapy is the major step forward,” said William W. Busse, MD, professor of allergy and immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and lead author of the previous guidelines (Bethesda, Md.: NHLBI, 2007). “It wasn’t within the scope of work, so it’s not a criticism, but it is an important shortcoming,” he said. The omission identifies the need for the next update. “This is an area that has to be dealt with,” Dr. Busse stated in an interview.

Including biologic agents would have delayed the release of the recommendations for another year or 2, wrote the expert panel working group of the NHLBI, “and this was felt to be unacceptable.” The working group, overseen by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee, also acknowledged the update is “not a complete revision” of the 2007 guidelines.

The update provides an evidenced-based review of six key topics in asthma care, as Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, professor of pediatrics at New York University Long Island, Mineola, pointed out: use of FeNO, indoor allergen mitigation, use of intermittent ICS and LAMA for asthma, role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma, and the use of bronchial thermoplasty.

“It has been 13 years since the last update and substantial progress has been made since then in understanding how to best treat children and adults with asthma,” said working group member Michael Schatz, MD, MS, FCCP, an allergy specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Diego.

According to Dr. Schatz, the most important updated recommendations are:

• Conditional recommendation for the use of ICS in children aged infant to 4 years with recurrent wheezing with respiratory infections.
• Use of combination ICS-formoterol for maintenance and to relieve flares in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
• Addition of the LAMA inhaled bronchodilator as add-on therapy for severe asthma not controlled by long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/ICS combination medications.

Another important update, Dr. Cataletto said, is “shared decision-making among members of asthma teams in order to improve asthma care across all age groups.”

In all, the update includes 19 recommendations in the six subject areas. Each recommendation is notated with two values: its strength, either strong or conditional, and the certainty of evidence behind it, either low, moderate, or high. For example, the recommendation for ICS in young children that Dr. Schatz referred to has a conditional strength of recommendation with moderate certainty of evidence.

Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology to determine strength of recommendation is a notable innovation of the latest guidelines, Dr. Busse noted.

Recommendations (strength of recommendation/certainty of evidence) include:

• Use of FeNO in children and adults when the asthma diagnosis is uncertain (conditional/moderate) or in those with allergic asthma and an uncertain course of management (conditional/low).
• Avoid standalone FeNO to evaluate asthma control or the likelihood or severity of future exacerbations, or for in infants to 4-year-olds with recurrent wheezing (strong/low for both).
• Avoid allergen mitigation in routine asthma management for patients who don’t have sensitivity to specific indoor allergens (conditional/low).
• Multicomponent allergen-specific mitigation when specific allergen sensitivity has been identified and pest management alone for symptoms related to specific pest exposure (conditional/low for both).
• Impermeable bedding covers should be part of a multicomponent mitigation strategy, not as a standalone tool, for patients with asthma and dust mite sensitivity (conditional/moderate).
• Daily ICS at onset of a respiratory tract infection along with as-needed short-acting beta-agonists in children aged 4 years and younger with recurrent wheezing but no wheezing between infections rather than as-needed standalone SABA (conditional/high).
• For adults and children aged 12 years and older with mild persistent asthma, either daily low-dose ICS with as-needed SABA or as-needed ICS and SABA concomitantly (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid short-course increased ICS dosing for patients aged 4 years and older with good adherence to daily ICS therapy (conditional/low).
• For patients aged 4 years and older with moderate to severe persistent asthma, a preference for combined ICS-formoterol inhaler over higher dose ICS daily and intermittent SABA or daily ICS-LABA with intermittent SABA (strong/high [aged 12 years and older]; moderate [aged 4-11 years]).
• A preference for combined ICS-formoterol for both daily and relief therapy for patients 12 years and older with severe persistent asthma over higher-dose ICS-LABA daily and intermittent SABA (conditional/high).
• A preference for adding LABA rather than LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma (conditional/moderate).
• If LABA isn’t used, add LAMA to ICS in patients aged 12 years and older with uncontrolled persistent asthma rather than continuing the same dose of ICS alone (conditional/moderate).
• In those same patients already on combined ICS-LABA therapy, add LAMA rather than continuing the same dose of ICS-LABA (conditional/moderate).
• Use subcutaneous immunotherapy as a potential adjunct to standard drug therapy in patients aged 5 years and older with mild to moderate allergic asthma when their asthma is controlled on immunotherapy (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid sublingual immunotherapy in patients with persistent allergic asthma (conditional/moderate).
• Avoid bronchial thermoplasty in those 18 years and older with persistent asthma, but consider it in patients who can accept the short-term worsening symptoms or unknown long-term side effects in exchange for the potential benefits (conditional/moderate).

One of the key elements of the guidelines is the use of the SMART (single maintenance and reliever therapy) approach to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of intermittent ICS with formoterol, Dr. Busse noted. “I think that’s a very significant advance. The literature is replete with evidence to support this. Secondly, it really makes life convenient for patients; you have one inhaler.”

The recommendation on SABA use is also significant, Dr. Busse said. “Data have emerged to suggest that if you’re having a need for one of these rescue medications, it’s due to an increase in inflammation in the lower airway, and you want to give an ICS which will act on the inflammation along with the bronchodilator. That’s a new concept, and it’s a very significant step forward.”

Dr. Schatz disclosed financial relationships with Merck, Teva, and ALK-Abello, but was recused from the writing, discussion, and voting related to the immunotherapy recommendation. Dr. Cataletto and Dr. Busse have no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Schatz M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:1217-70.

A panel of scientific experts is urging the nation to do more to track morbidity and mortality among health care workers (HCWs), given the large and disproportionate number who have been infected with or died from SARS-CoV-2.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats issued a 10-page “rapid expert consultation” on what is known about deaths and mental health problems among HCWs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and how to protect workers.

“The absence of a uniform national framework and inconsistent requirements across states for collecting, recording, and reporting HCW mortality and morbidity data associated with COVID-19 impairs anyone’s ability to make comparisons, do combined analyses, or draw conclusions about the scale of the problem,” says the panel in the report.

Mental health, in particular, needs to be examined, it says. Although the data are still limited, the prevalence of burnout and suicide “points to a serious concern,” according to the report.

“As with mortality due to COVID-19, there are currently no national systems nor reporting standards for morbidity measures related to the pandemic, such as mental health status, provider well-being, and other psychological effects on HCWs,” the report says.

A more robust national system that collected data on circumstances and interventions that may raise or lower risk, as well as on where the infection occurred, “would support the adoption of effective mitigation strategies,” says the report. It would also facilitate epidemiologic studies on risk factors, such as face-to-face contact with COVID-19 patients and the availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Studies could also examine the impact of institutional requirements for masking.

Studies have consistently shown that universal mask wearing and access to appropriate PPE support the physical safety and mental health of HCWs, says the report.
 

Track scale of crisis

The committee cited many gaps in the current system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for instance, doesn’t count deaths from occupationally acquired infection. Many states don’t report COVID-19 deaths by profession. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relies on case report forms from local health departments for all COVID-19 cases, which typically are lacking in specifics, such as occupation or job setting, says the committee’s report.

As of Nov. 3, the CDC had reported 786 deaths among HCWs that were attributable to COVID-19 – a far lower number than other sources have reported.

The committee notes that much could be done immediately. A National Academy of Medicine panel on clinician well-being and resilience in August recommended that the CDC establish a national epidemiologic tracking program to measure HCWs’ well-being, assess the acute and long-term effects of COVID-19 on those workers, and report on the outcomes of interventions.

Such a program “is needed to comprehensively acknowledge the scale of the COVID-19 crisis and protect the health care workforce that is already stretched to the breaking point in many locations,” the committee says in its report.
 

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

A panel of scientific experts is urging the nation to do more to track morbidity and mortality among health care workers (HCWs), given the large and disproportionate number who have been infected with or died from SARS-CoV-2.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats issued a 10-page “rapid expert consultation” on what is known about deaths and mental health problems among HCWs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and how to protect workers.

“The absence of a uniform national framework and inconsistent requirements across states for collecting, recording, and reporting HCW mortality and morbidity data associated with COVID-19 impairs anyone’s ability to make comparisons, do combined analyses, or draw conclusions about the scale of the problem,” says the panel in the report.

Mental health, in particular, needs to be examined, it says. Although the data are still limited, the prevalence of burnout and suicide “points to a serious concern,” according to the report.

“As with mortality due to COVID-19, there are currently no national systems nor reporting standards for morbidity measures related to the pandemic, such as mental health status, provider well-being, and other psychological effects on HCWs,” the report says.

A more robust national system that collected data on circumstances and interventions that may raise or lower risk, as well as on where the infection occurred, “would support the adoption of effective mitigation strategies,” says the report. It would also facilitate epidemiologic studies on risk factors, such as face-to-face contact with COVID-19 patients and the availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Studies could also examine the impact of institutional requirements for masking.

Studies have consistently shown that universal mask wearing and access to appropriate PPE support the physical safety and mental health of HCWs, says the report.
 

Track scale of crisis

The committee cited many gaps in the current system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for instance, doesn’t count deaths from occupationally acquired infection. Many states don’t report COVID-19 deaths by profession. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relies on case report forms from local health departments for all COVID-19 cases, which typically are lacking in specifics, such as occupation or job setting, says the committee’s report.

As of Nov. 3, the CDC had reported 786 deaths among HCWs that were attributable to COVID-19 – a far lower number than other sources have reported.

The committee notes that much could be done immediately. A National Academy of Medicine panel on clinician well-being and resilience in August recommended that the CDC establish a national epidemiologic tracking program to measure HCWs’ well-being, assess the acute and long-term effects of COVID-19 on those workers, and report on the outcomes of interventions.

Such a program “is needed to comprehensively acknowledge the scale of the COVID-19 crisis and protect the health care workforce that is already stretched to the breaking point in many locations,” the committee says in its report.
 

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

A panel of scientific experts is urging the nation to do more to track morbidity and mortality among health care workers (HCWs), given the large and disproportionate number who have been infected with or died from SARS-CoV-2.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats issued a 10-page “rapid expert consultation” on what is known about deaths and mental health problems among HCWs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and how to protect workers.

“The absence of a uniform national framework and inconsistent requirements across states for collecting, recording, and reporting HCW mortality and morbidity data associated with COVID-19 impairs anyone’s ability to make comparisons, do combined analyses, or draw conclusions about the scale of the problem,” says the panel in the report.

Mental health, in particular, needs to be examined, it says. Although the data are still limited, the prevalence of burnout and suicide “points to a serious concern,” according to the report.

“As with mortality due to COVID-19, there are currently no national systems nor reporting standards for morbidity measures related to the pandemic, such as mental health status, provider well-being, and other psychological effects on HCWs,” the report says.

A more robust national system that collected data on circumstances and interventions that may raise or lower risk, as well as on where the infection occurred, “would support the adoption of effective mitigation strategies,” says the report. It would also facilitate epidemiologic studies on risk factors, such as face-to-face contact with COVID-19 patients and the availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Studies could also examine the impact of institutional requirements for masking.

Studies have consistently shown that universal mask wearing and access to appropriate PPE support the physical safety and mental health of HCWs, says the report.
 

Track scale of crisis

The committee cited many gaps in the current system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for instance, doesn’t count deaths from occupationally acquired infection. Many states don’t report COVID-19 deaths by profession. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relies on case report forms from local health departments for all COVID-19 cases, which typically are lacking in specifics, such as occupation or job setting, says the committee’s report.

As of Nov. 3, the CDC had reported 786 deaths among HCWs that were attributable to COVID-19 – a far lower number than other sources have reported.

The committee notes that much could be done immediately. A National Academy of Medicine panel on clinician well-being and resilience in August recommended that the CDC establish a national epidemiologic tracking program to measure HCWs’ well-being, assess the acute and long-term effects of COVID-19 on those workers, and report on the outcomes of interventions.

Such a program “is needed to comprehensively acknowledge the scale of the COVID-19 crisis and protect the health care workforce that is already stretched to the breaking point in many locations,” the committee says in its report.
 

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