MDedge Pediatrics

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

A multidisciplinary team seeking to measure compliance with hand hygiene (HH) practices in pediatric ICUs across Europe found compliance was comparable and relatively high among unit doctors and nurses, but not as high in nonunit doctors and nurses.

Ioannis Kopsidas, MD, presented these results from the RANIN-KIDS Network during the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. RANIN-KIDS (Reducing Antimicrobial Use and Nosocomial Infections in Kids) is a European network with the aim of preventing hospital-associated infections and promoting judicial antimicrobial use in pediatric patients using a common sustainable methodology across Europe.

Infections kill. This is especially the case in pediatric ICUs, where young age and an immunocompromised status make patients particularly vulnerable to infections. Poor HH is a major cause for disease transmission. To reduce the risk, the World Health Organization recommends attention to five moments of hand hygiene and nine steps for hand washing. Various tools are available to improve adherence, but whether these measures are being followed is unclear. The researchers sought to assess the degree of compliance with HH practices in pediatric ICUs and to identify targets for improvement.

Dr. Kopsidas, of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues examined practices in nine pediatric ICUs across six European countries (Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) by means of prospective observational study. All organizations were part of the RANIN-KIDS network. Over a 6-month period starting in March 2019, observations were conducted in every unit by observers using a data collection tool developed based on WHO guidelines. Training for observers was provided using a self-paced teaching kit comprising PowerPoint and video presentations, followed by the completion of a test observation form after observing staged hand hygiene exercises. Results were then compared with WHO guidance, and irregularities were explained in order to achieve interrater reliability.

Vladimir Voronin/Fotolia

Researchers observed 1,715 HH opportunities. Across all pediatric ICUs, the median HH compliance rate was 82% (interquartile range, 72%-95%). Stratified by type of professional, median compliance was comparable among unit doctors (90%) and nurses (87%), but lower for nonunit doctors and nurses (81%) and also for nondoctors and nonnurses (67%). Alcohol-based hand rub was substantially preferred to soap and water, being used in 84% of the observations (IQR, 69%-87%). Cleaning and drying technique was considered appropriate in a median of 93% of observations (IQR, 86%-96%).

Compliance to moment 5 (after touching patient surroundings) was the lowest across hospitals (median 71%), compared with a median 100% for moment 2 (before clean/aseptic procedures) and a median 93% for moment 3 (after body fluid exposure/risk). For moment 1, median compliance was 87% (before touching a patient), and for moment 4, median compliance was 82% (after touching a patient).

Dr. Kopsidas concluded that the overall level of HH compliance among doctors and nurses working in European pediatric ICUs appears to be high, with moment 5 being the most frequently missed opportunity. Nonunit doctors and nurses and other personnel show lower WHO guidelines adherence. He stated that “these results will be used to design tailor-made interventions in participating units with the aim of reducing HAIs [health care–associated infections] and spread of multidrug resistant infections.”

He also said that “unified surveillance in Europe is possible and achievable, and allows for benchmarking among countries, institutions and wards.”

For some units, improving HH is a missed opportunity. The next stop for the RANIN-KIDS network is to look at the effects of interventions on reducing spread.

Dr. Kopsidas had no relevant financial disclosures.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.