MDedge Endocrinology

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be highly effective in a large trial, but clinicians will be waiting and watching for reactions and adverse events in their vaccinated patients.

A two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was found to be safe and 95% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons aged 16 years and older, according to an ongoing phase 2/3 trial. Pfizer and BioNTech published safety and efficacy results from the landmark global phase 1/2/3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate in the New England Journal of Medicine .

“We previously reported phase 1 safety and immunogenicity results from clinical trials of the vaccine candidate BNT162b2,” lead author Fernando P. Polack, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues wrote. “This data set and [present] trial results are the basis for an application for emergency-use authorization,” they explained.
 

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

Among 43,448 individuals aged 16 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a continuous phase 1/2/3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 30 mcg of BNT162b2 (n = 21,720) or saline placebo (n = 21,728) administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. The safety evaluation, where subjects were monitored 30 minutes post vaccination for acute reactions, was observer blinded.

Eligibility criteria included healthy individuals or those with stable chronic medical conditions, including viral hepatitis B and C, as well as human immunodeficiency virus. Persons with a diagnosis of an immunocompromising condition, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, and individuals with a medical history of COVID-19 were excluded.

The first primary endpoint was efficacy of BNT162b2 against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was local and systemic reactions occurring within 7 days post injection of BNT162b2 or placebo.
 

Safety

“At the data cutoff date of Oct. 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set,” the authors wrote.

Among these participants, 83% were White, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, and 9% were Black or African American; 49% of subjects were female and the median age was 52 years, with 42% over aged 55 years.

Overall, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after the injection was the most frequently reported local reaction (<1% across all age groups reported severe pain). Most local reactions resolved within 1-2 days and no grade 4 reactions were reported.

The investigators reported: “Fever (temperature, ≥38° C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of vaccine recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9-40° C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose.”

BNT162b2 recipients had more injection-site pain than those receiving the placebo. After the first and second doses, younger recipients (under 55 years) had more pain at the injection site (83 vs. 14 and 78 vs. 12 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 6 vs. 1), and swelling (6 vs. 0 and 6 vs. 0), compared with placebo recipients.

The same trend was observed for patients aged over 55 years, with vaccine recipients reporting more pain at the injection site (71 vs. 9 and 66 vs. 8 events, respectively), redness (5 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1), and swelling (7 vs. 1 and 7 vs. 1) than placebo recipients.

Pain was less common overall among vaccine recipients aged over 55 years (71% reported pain after the first dose; 66% post second dose) than among younger vaccine recipients (83% post first dose; 78% post second dose).

The most common systemic events following the second dose were fatigue and headache, which occurred in 59% and 52% of younger vaccine recipients and 51% and 39% of older vaccine recipients, respectively. But fatigue and headache were also reported by participants in the placebo group (23% and 24%, respectively, post second dose, among younger vaccine recipients; 17% and 14% among older recipients).

The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the vaccine (0.6%) and placebo (0.5%) arms. Severe systemic events occurred in 2% or less of vaccine recipients following either dose, except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%) post second dose. No deaths were considered to be vaccine or placebo related.

“The safety appears comparable to other vaccines, but the relatively short period of observation, 2 months, and the relatively small number of subjects who have received the vaccine (less than 30,000), compared to the hundreds of millions likely to ultimately receive the vaccine, precludes conclusions regarding the potential for rare long term adverse effects,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview. “Clinicians should be aware of the risk of anaphylactic reactions and discuss it with their patients [who have] a history of these reactions.”
 

Efficacy

Among 36,523 subjects without evidence of existing or prior COVID-19 infection, 8 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were seen among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval, 90.3%-97.6%).

“Supplemental analyses indicated that vaccine efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population,” the authors wrote.

Between the first and second doses, 39 cases of COVID-19 were observed among BNT162b2 recipients and 82 cases among placebo recipients, corresponding to 52% vaccine efficacy during the 21-day interval (95% CI, 29.5%-68.4%) suggesting early protection may begin as soon as 12 days after the first injection.

“This is an incredible achievement given that an effective vaccine has never been developed and approved for use in such a short timeframe,” Dr. Bowton explained. “That the vaccine is highly effective in reducing the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 seems incontrovertible.”

“This vaccine has shockingly amazing efficacy and is well tolerated, and the results are beyond even optimistic projections,” Douglas S. Paauw, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
 

Questions remain

“It is not yet known if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infections, with their attendant risk of contagion, as rates of seroconversion of trial participants against betacoronavirus nucleoproteins not included in the vaccine has not been reported,” Dr. Bowton commented.

“Common questions our patients will ask us remain unanswered for now, [including] how long will the protection last, is it safe in pregnant women, and does it prevent asymptomatic infection,” Dr. Paauw explained. “We do not know everything about longer term side effects, but the benefits of this vaccine appear to outweigh the risks of the vaccine.”

The researchers noted these and other limitations in their report, acknowledging that longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term safety of the vaccine.

This study was supported by BioNTech and Pfizer. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Bowton and Dr. Paauw had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Polack FP et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
 

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two new studies suggest that LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) may be not the main driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The findings instead implicate remnant cholesterol (remnant-C) and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MI.

The PREDIMED study, conducted in Spain, examined the association of triglycerides and remnant-C with major cardiovascular events (MACE) in older individuals with high CVD risk. It found that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were associated with MACE independently of other risk factors, but there was no similar association with LDL-C.

“These findings lead [clinicians] to consider in the clinical management of dyslipidemias a greater control of the lipid profiles as a whole, including remnant-cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” Montserrat Fitó Colomer, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Risk and Nutrition Research Group, Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, said in an interview.

In a separate analysis, the Copenhagen General Population Study, which focused on 25,000 individuals who were not taking lipid-lowering therapy, looked at the role of VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides in driving MI risk from apolipoprotein B (apoB)–containing lipoproteins.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Elevated VLDL cholesterol explained a larger fraction of risk than did elevated LDL cholesterol, or elevated VLDL triglycerides,” Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor, University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

Both studies were published online Nov. 30 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

But in an editorial accompanying both reports, John Burnett, MD, PhD, from the University of Western Australia, Perth, and colleagues cautioned that it would be “premature to discard LDL-C based on PREDIMED.”

The findings are “insufficient to offset the mountain of literally hundreds of studies that uphold the value of LDL-C in prediction and intervention of ASCVD,” Dr. Burnett and coauthors wrote.

Similarly, the editorialists cautioned that, although the findings from the study by Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues indicate that VLDL cholesterol is the “new kid in town for prediction, LDL cholesterol retains predictive power.” Clinical cardiologists should not “shelve LDL cholesterol and embrace VLDL and remnant cholesterol as the new oracles of ASCVD risk.” 

In a comment, Dr. Burnett said, “The take-home message for clinicians in both papers is that LDL-C is the main lipid measurement to guide clinical decisions; however, residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains, even after LCL-C is treated.

“Assessment of residual ASCVD risk with nontraditional lipid biomarkers, including VLDL cholesterol and remnant cholesterol, as well as lipoprotein (a) and apoB, may improve prognostication and help guide preventive treatments,” he added.
 

“Affordable and inexpensive”

In their report, the PREDIMED study authors explained that atherogenic dyslipidemia is characterized by “an excess of serum triglycerides” contained in VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoproteins, and their remnants, all of which are called “triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs).”

TRLs and remnant-C “have the capacity to cross the arterial wall,” and may therefore play a causal role in atherosclerosis development, they wrote.

The main PREDIMED trial compared a low-fat diet with the Mediterranean diet for the primary prevention of CVD in high-risk participants. Those enrolled in the trial “had a high prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, conditions that are associated with insulin resistance, hypertriglyceridemia, and atherogenic dyslipidemia,” the authors wrote. “Thus, this cohort of subjects at high cardiovascular risk was well suited to investigate the association of triglycerides and TRLs with cardiovascular outcomes.” 

The researchers investigated the role of triglycerides and remnant-C in incident CVD among these high-risk individuals, particularly those with chronic cardiometabolic disorders (prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and poorly controlled diabetes), overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, and renal failure.

Their 6,901 participants (42.6% male, mean age 67 years, mean BMI 30.0 kg/m2) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or at least three CVD risk factors including current smoking, hypertension, elevated LDL-C levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, elevated body mass index, or family history of premature coronary heart disease.

The primary study endpoint was a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Participants were followed for a mean of 4.8 years, during which there was a total of 263 MACE events.

Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed that levels of triglycerides and remnant-C were both associated with MACE independent of other risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06; and HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33 per 10 mg/dl, respectively, both P < .001). Non–HDL cholesterol was also associated with MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10 per 10 mg/dl, P = .026).

In particular, elevated remnant-C (≥30 mg/dL), compared with lower concentrations, flagged subjects at a higher risk of MACE, even if their LDL-C levels were at target (defined as ≤ 100 mg/dL).

Levels of LDL-C and HDL cholesterol were not associated with MACE.

“The indirect calculation of remnant-C is an affordable and inexpensive method, which could provide valuable data for clinical management,” Dr. Fitó Colomer said.

“The results of this study suggest that, in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with well-controlled LDL-C, triglycerides and mainly remnant-C should be considered as a treatment target,” she proposed.
 

New oracles?

Evidence has pointed to triglyceride-rich remnants or VLDL cholesterol as contributing to atherosclerotic CVD, together with LDL-C, but it is “unclear which fraction of risk is explained by, respectively, cholesterol and triglycerides in VLDL,” write the authors of the Copenhagen population study.

Dr. Nordestgaard said their study was motivated by an awareness that “in clinical practice, the focus for lipid-related risk is almost solely on reduction of LDL-C for prevention of ASCVD,” so the current focus needs to be reevaluated because patients with low LDL-C but elevated VLDL cholesterol and plasma triglycerides “may not be offered adequate preventive lipid-lowering therapy in order to prevent future MI and ASCVD.”

His group therefore tested the hypothesis that VLDL cholesterol and triglycerides may each explain part of the MI risk from apoB-containing lipoproteins.

They used measurements of plasma apoB and cholesterol and triglyceride content of VLDL cholesterol, intermediate-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and LDL-C in the study participants (N = 25,480, median age 61 years, 53% female), who were required to be free of MI and not receiving lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

During a median 11-year follow-up period, 1,816 participants experienced an MI. They tended to be older, compared with those who did not experience an MI, and also more likely to be male, to smoke, and to have higher systolic blood pressure.

Each 39-mg/dL increase in lipid level was found to be associated with higher MI risk.

The researchers looked at MI-associated risk of specific subfractions of apoB-containing lipoproteins. “VLDL cholesterol explained half of the MI risk from elevated apoB-containing lipoproteins, and [intermediate-density-lipoprotein] and LDL-C together accounted for only 29% of the risk,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

“If LDL cholesterol is adequately reduced, clinicians need to evaluate possible elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, either as elevated plasma triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or elevated VLDL cholesterol; and, if elevated, consideration should also be given to reduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins,” he advised.

The Copenhagen General Population study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Dr. Nordestgaard disclosed consulting for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka Seiken, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutrics. PREDIMED was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III- FEDER, Fundació La Marató de TV3, and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca. Dr. Fitó Colomer disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Burnett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If the initial success of the Pfizer-BioNTech rollout continues, and emergency use authorization (EAU) is granted to Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in development, Operation Warp Speed officials expect to have 300 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to distribute across the United States between now and March 31.

The initial rollout remains on track, said Alex Azar, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary, during a media briefing today. “We continue to have good news to report. As of today, shipments of vaccine will have been delivered to every delivery site identified by public health jurisdictions for our first wave of shipments.”

Anomalies in shipments to California and Alabama arose when temperature monitors showed the Pfizer vaccine dropped lower than the recommended -80 ºC (-112 °F). These vaccine trays remained on delivery trucks and were returned to Pfizer for prompt replacement, said Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna.

Azar estimated another 2 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be available next week. “And if the Moderna vaccine is authorized by the FDA in the coming days, we have allocated nearly 5.9 million doses of that product.”

The Moderna vaccine data released this week look promising, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, Operation Warp Speed chief scientific adviser. “In the short term, I expect the protection to be quite significant.”

The findings in the first 2 weeks after the first dose show up to 65% protection, he said, and predicted the second-dose efficacy data will be coming in the next few weeks.

Enrollment in the phase 3 Johnson & Johnson trial with nearly 44,000 participants is expected to end December 17. Initial efficacy results are anticipated by early January, with more complete efficacy numbers by late January, Slaoui said.

The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial also is underway with enrollment continuing. “We expect accruement to end in late December or early next year, with first results expected probably in February,” Slaoui said.
 

Antibody treatments underutilized

The media briefing also addressed COVID-19 therapeutics. Azar reported low uptake of available antibody therapies. “I want to remind Americans that there are two authorized antibody treatments that Operation Warp Speed has supported. They can help prevent hospitalization in those patients with the highest risk for severe disease.”

The higher-risk group includes those who are 65 and older and people with comorbid conditions that put them at increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization.

The federal government allocated more than 330,000 doses of these treatments and many states have product available, Azar said.

Slaoui agreed, saying there is a “disappointing level of usage of monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitals. We look forward to that improving.”
 

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

“We now have more than 900 million doses of the vaccine we have contracted delivery for,” Azar said. The government has options to increase that to a total of 3 billion doses.

In addition to the 100 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 100 million Moderna doses already ordered, the government just took an option for another 100 million Moderna doses for the second quarter of 2021. Operation Warp Speed officials are negotiating with Pfizer for additional product as well.

Azar added that there are 100 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in active production and expects AstraZeneca can provide 300 million doses of their product.

With the possibility of three or more vaccine products and with 330 million Americans, minus the 70 million or so children under age 16, “we believe we will actually have surplus supplies,” Azar said. Plans are to take the US surplus vaccine and surplus manufacturing capacity “and use that for the benefit of the world community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.

“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”

She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”

It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.

“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.

To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.

“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”

Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).

Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).

In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm³ to 146 mg/cm³.

“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”

Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.

The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.

The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”

The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”

“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”

“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”

What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.

“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”

Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.

“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”

She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”

It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.

“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.

To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.

“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”

Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).

Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).

In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm³ to 146 mg/cm³.

“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”

Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.

The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.

The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”

The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”

“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”

“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”

What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.

“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”

Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adolescents who undergo sleeve gastrectomy have lower bone density and higher bone marrow fat at 1 year following surgery, new research shows.

“It’s almost paradoxical,” Miriam Bredella, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. “Despite marked loss of body fat, these children have more fat in their bones and decreased bone density.”

She explained that the dissected part of the stomach is filled with anabolic cells that are important for building bone mass. “When those cells are cut out, the body cannot produce the hormones for building up bone.” It’s a malabsorption problem, she added. “Cutting out parts of the stomach or gut leads to less absorption.”

It is well known that bariatric surgery in adults has long-term effects on bone, she said, but this is the first time it has been studied in children.

“Nobody thinks about bone loss in children, but it’s extremely important,” Bredella reports. “The adolescent years up to age 25 are when we accrue bone density, so if something happens during this critical time, it can lead to weak bones later in life.” In the case of these adolescents, peak bone mass is never reached.

To investigate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy on bone density and marrow adipose tissue in extremely obese teenagers, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School recruited 52 adolescents with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 45. They measured volumetric bone mineral density using quantitative computer tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine.

“We used QCT instead of DEXA [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry] scan because it isn’t affected by changes in soft tissue; it’s less susceptible to extreme changes in body weight,” Bredella said. “With DEXA scan there are too many artifacts.”

Half of the group (n = 26) underwent surgery. At 1 year, those who underwent surgery lost an average of 34 kg (75 lb). Adolescents in the control group lost an average of 0.2 kg (0.5 lb) (P < .0001).

Both groups repeated the QCT scan at the 1-year follow-up. Researchers found a decrease in bone density in those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy vs. controls (P = .046).

In her presentation, Bredella showed the QCT of the L2 spine in a 17-year old female before surgery and 12 months later. Her volumetric bone mineral density decreased from 183 mg/cm³ to 146 mg/cm³.

“Sleeve gastrectomy in children is bad for bones,” Bradella said. “You have to take care of your bones. This is something people are not thinking about and it probably won’t be a problem when they’re young but will likely affect these patients with osteoporosis when they are older.”

Patients need to be aware of this, she warns, and take steps to combat the bone loss. “Drinking milk, taking vitamin D, and doing weight-bearing exercise may help increase the bone density,” she said.

The increased fat in the bone is also concerning, she said. “Increased fat in the bone is a phenomenon that we see in anorexic patients,” Bredella explained.

The body appears to store the fat in bone in case of need later on, she explained. “We know that in severe states of malnutrition the body has the ability to metabolize the fat in the bones.”

The obesity epidemic in America has given way to a 100-fold increase in sleeve gastrectomy procedures in teenagers between 2005 and 2014. “These patients need this surgery so they don›t die of cardiac arrest or diabetes,” she said. “But we need to make sure they get their bone mineral density checked frequently.”

“The results of this study are important,” Marc Michalsky, MD, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told Medscape Medical News. “But they need to be put into context.”

“There is an impetus and argument to support bariatric surgery as it offers a significant reduction in BMI and an associated reversal and complete amelioration of obesity related diseases.”

What this study doesn’t address, he said, is whether this population will experience an increase in bone density-related fractures down the road.

“These results are a snapshot in time — a picture of one postoperative time point,” Michalsky pointed out. “Are we seeing a process that represents continued change in bone mineralization? It’s not unreasonable to assume that the radiological findings here may lead to real clinical impact, but we don’t know.”

Bredella and Michalsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first 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.

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.

You can now buy vegan eggnog, made from almond milk. The fact that someone created this wasn’t a surprise – plant milks are taking over. That it gave me such pleasure was. It’s rich, and if you love eggnog, like all normal people, it’s amazingly satisfying when mixed in a Nespresso latte swirled creamy white and brown. It seems some things, like Netflix’s The Crown, my Peloton spin classes, long Sunday walks on the beach, and the best mushroom risotto I ever made were still pleasurable this year, despite all. I’d daresay, there was joy even in the time of COVID.

But, before we get to that, it might be useful to distinguish between joy and pleasure.

Pleasure is pretty constant. It pops up even in the worst times. It seems, there’s plenty to be found even now. Unless, perhaps it’s just me. The label my mother pinned on me as a boy has remained into adulthood: “Easy to please.” There’s hardly a movie I’ve seen that I didn’t like. I’m quite comfortable in the middle seat. I thought the EPIC updates this year were nice. I’ve liked the vast majority of pizzas I’ve ever eaten – even those contaminated with Truffle salt. Easy to please is a gift, not something I’ve acquired through hours of meditation or aesthetic fasts. But surely pleasure isn’t the same as joy. No one has tears of pleasure. (Not to mention, pleasure as a verb has obvious NSFW connotations; not true of joy).

No, joy is waaay bigger. Joy is shared. Joy is to the whole world. Joy is what happens when you have a baby. Pleasure is what happens when you remembered to put a burp cloth in the car. Pleasure is when three patients in a row take merely 5 minutes each. Joy is when an itchy patient is cured.

2020 was one of the most miserable years in the last century. We didn’t expect it, but we ought to have. I mean really, how many plagues have we endured? How many times has inequality led to social unrest? Many times. We, by luck and dint of hard work, have always managed to get through. Although suffering would surely have been greater during those times of sickness and loss, I don’t believe joy would have been less. Indeed, maybe it is those difficulties and that suffering that allows us to feel joy in the first place. It is only once you summit that you experience joy. The run-up is just pain.

It is no coincidence that it is now during this cold, dark, difficult part of the year that we wish joy. We’ve made it. We light the darkness with candles to joyously celebrate Mawlid, Diwali, then Hanukkah and Christmas. Had malls been open now, you’d hear amongst the din of ringing bells Rejoice! Rejoice! O Emmanuel! You’d sing along, “Joy to the world, now we sing, let the Angel voices ring.” Joy: A pleasure so great and so deserved, it is shared by all. It is good news, hope, gratitude.

A joy shared amongst us all is also coming. Through the wrenching pain of watching patients suffocate, fogged shields, and bleached masks, through canceled Thanksgivings, through weekends spent in the OR on the backlog of patients, after months spent sitting in empty clinics, though the long, orange-cone-winding lines of testing, at last, at last a vaccine is here to light the darkness.

Let the sea resound, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.
Let the rivers clap their hands,
let the mountains sing together for joy.
Joy to the world.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

You can now buy vegan eggnog, made from almond milk. The fact that someone created this wasn’t a surprise – plant milks are taking over. That it gave me such pleasure was. It’s rich, and if you love eggnog, like all normal people, it’s amazingly satisfying when mixed in a Nespresso latte swirled creamy white and brown. It seems some things, like Netflix’s The Crown, my Peloton spin classes, long Sunday walks on the beach, and the best mushroom risotto I ever made were still pleasurable this year, despite all. I’d daresay, there was joy even in the time of COVID.

But, before we get to that, it might be useful to distinguish between joy and pleasure.

Pleasure is pretty constant. It pops up even in the worst times. It seems, there’s plenty to be found even now. Unless, perhaps it’s just me. The label my mother pinned on me as a boy has remained into adulthood: “Easy to please.” There’s hardly a movie I’ve seen that I didn’t like. I’m quite comfortable in the middle seat. I thought the EPIC updates this year were nice. I’ve liked the vast majority of pizzas I’ve ever eaten – even those contaminated with Truffle salt. Easy to please is a gift, not something I’ve acquired through hours of meditation or aesthetic fasts. But surely pleasure isn’t the same as joy. No one has tears of pleasure. (Not to mention, pleasure as a verb has obvious NSFW connotations; not true of joy).

No, joy is waaay bigger. Joy is shared. Joy is to the whole world. Joy is what happens when you have a baby. Pleasure is what happens when you remembered to put a burp cloth in the car. Pleasure is when three patients in a row take merely 5 minutes each. Joy is when an itchy patient is cured.

2020 was one of the most miserable years in the last century. We didn’t expect it, but we ought to have. I mean really, how many plagues have we endured? How many times has inequality led to social unrest? Many times. We, by luck and dint of hard work, have always managed to get through. Although suffering would surely have been greater during those times of sickness and loss, I don’t believe joy would have been less. Indeed, maybe it is those difficulties and that suffering that allows us to feel joy in the first place. It is only once you summit that you experience joy. The run-up is just pain.

It is no coincidence that it is now during this cold, dark, difficult part of the year that we wish joy. We’ve made it. We light the darkness with candles to joyously celebrate Mawlid, Diwali, then Hanukkah and Christmas. Had malls been open now, you’d hear amongst the din of ringing bells Rejoice! Rejoice! O Emmanuel! You’d sing along, “Joy to the world, now we sing, let the Angel voices ring.” Joy: A pleasure so great and so deserved, it is shared by all. It is good news, hope, gratitude.

A joy shared amongst us all is also coming. Through the wrenching pain of watching patients suffocate, fogged shields, and bleached masks, through canceled Thanksgivings, through weekends spent in the OR on the backlog of patients, after months spent sitting in empty clinics, though the long, orange-cone-winding lines of testing, at last, at last a vaccine is here to light the darkness.

Let the sea resound, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.
Let the rivers clap their hands,
let the mountains sing together for joy.
Joy to the world.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

You can now buy vegan eggnog, made from almond milk. The fact that someone created this wasn’t a surprise – plant milks are taking over. That it gave me such pleasure was. It’s rich, and if you love eggnog, like all normal people, it’s amazingly satisfying when mixed in a Nespresso latte swirled creamy white and brown. It seems some things, like Netflix’s The Crown, my Peloton spin classes, long Sunday walks on the beach, and the best mushroom risotto I ever made were still pleasurable this year, despite all. I’d daresay, there was joy even in the time of COVID.

But, before we get to that, it might be useful to distinguish between joy and pleasure.

Pleasure is pretty constant. It pops up even in the worst times. It seems, there’s plenty to be found even now. Unless, perhaps it’s just me. The label my mother pinned on me as a boy has remained into adulthood: “Easy to please.” There’s hardly a movie I’ve seen that I didn’t like. I’m quite comfortable in the middle seat. I thought the EPIC updates this year were nice. I’ve liked the vast majority of pizzas I’ve ever eaten – even those contaminated with Truffle salt. Easy to please is a gift, not something I’ve acquired through hours of meditation or aesthetic fasts. But surely pleasure isn’t the same as joy. No one has tears of pleasure. (Not to mention, pleasure as a verb has obvious NSFW connotations; not true of joy).

No, joy is waaay bigger. Joy is shared. Joy is to the whole world. Joy is what happens when you have a baby. Pleasure is what happens when you remembered to put a burp cloth in the car. Pleasure is when three patients in a row take merely 5 minutes each. Joy is when an itchy patient is cured.

2020 was one of the most miserable years in the last century. We didn’t expect it, but we ought to have. I mean really, how many plagues have we endured? How many times has inequality led to social unrest? Many times. We, by luck and dint of hard work, have always managed to get through. Although suffering would surely have been greater during those times of sickness and loss, I don’t believe joy would have been less. Indeed, maybe it is those difficulties and that suffering that allows us to feel joy in the first place. It is only once you summit that you experience joy. The run-up is just pain.

It is no coincidence that it is now during this cold, dark, difficult part of the year that we wish joy. We’ve made it. We light the darkness with candles to joyously celebrate Mawlid, Diwali, then Hanukkah and Christmas. Had malls been open now, you’d hear amongst the din of ringing bells Rejoice! Rejoice! O Emmanuel! You’d sing along, “Joy to the world, now we sing, let the Angel voices ring.” Joy: A pleasure so great and so deserved, it is shared by all. It is good news, hope, gratitude.

A joy shared amongst us all is also coming. Through the wrenching pain of watching patients suffocate, fogged shields, and bleached masks, through canceled Thanksgivings, through weekends spent in the OR on the backlog of patients, after months spent sitting in empty clinics, though the long, orange-cone-winding lines of testing, at last, at last a vaccine is here to light the darkness.

Let the sea resound, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.
Let the rivers clap their hands,
let the mountains sing together for joy.
Joy to the world.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.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.

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.