Neurology Reviews

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

In a new randomized trial that investigated the question of whether thrombolysis can be omitted for patients with stroke who are undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for a large-vessel occlusion, results were similar for both approaches.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial failed to show superiority or noninferiority of direct endovascular treatment over intravenous alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) followed by endovascular treatment, and functional outcomes were not significantly different. In addition, hemorrhage rates with or without intravenous alteplase administration before endovascular treatment were similar.

“From the MR CLEAN NO IV results, we cannot change standard practice, as we failed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach, and we also didn’t meet the noninferiority criteria. So, the standard practice of giving tPA to those eligible still holds,” said co–lead investigator Yvo Roos, MD.

“But I think we can say that these results suggest that there may also not be such a need for tPA in patients who can go straight for endovascular therapy,” said Dr. Roos, who is professor of neurology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

“If we are not sure whether a patient is suitable for tPA because they have a higher bleeding risk, I think we can be reassured about missing the tPA out and going straight to endovascular treatment. So, if in doubt, leave it out,” he added.

Results of the MR CLEAN NO IV trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

“If in doubt, leave it out”

Dr. Roos noted that three trials have investigated the question regarding dropping thrombolysis for patients who can receive thrombectomy quickly. These are the DIRECT MT, SKIP, and DEVT studies. All of these trials were conducted in Asian countries, and none found differences in functional outcomes between the two approaches.

The largest of these studies – the DIRECT-MT trial, from China, which was a sister study to MR CLEAN NO IV – did show noninferiority of the direct endovascular approach to tPA plus endovascular treatment.

But because of differences in health care logistics and trial populations, the benefits and risks of dropping thrombolysis in Western countries are not known, explained Charles Majoie, MD, who is co–lead investigator of the current trial and is chair of neuroradiology at Amsterdam Medical Center.

The MR CLEAN NO IV trial was designed to show superiority of the direct endovascular approach with noninferiority for hemorrhage. It enrolled 540 European patients who were eligible for both thrombolysis and thrombectomy and who presented to a thrombectomy-capable center. They were randomly assigned to receive thrombolysis plus endovascular therapy or direct endovascular therapy alone.

The mean time from stroke onset to groin puncture (the start of endovascular therapy) was very fast in both groups – 130 minutes in the direct group, and 135 minutes in the tPA group.

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). On that outcome, the trial failed to show significant superiority of the direct approach (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.19).

A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) was achieved in 49% of the direct thrombectomy group and in 51% of the tPA group (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40).

Safety results showed no difference in any of the hemorrhage endpoints between the two groups. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was actually numerically higher in the direct thrombectomy group (5.9% vs. 5.3%).

“One of the most intriguing results of this study is that there was no increase in hemorrhage in the tPA group,” Dr. Roos commented. “This is very surprising, as we have always thought thrombolysis causes an increased bleeding risk. But after these results, we may have to rethink that idea – perhaps it is not the tPA itself that causes bleeding risk but rather the opening up of the vessel.”

On the failure to show noninferiority of the direct approach, Dr. Roos suggested that the trial may have been underpowered in this respect.

“Our sister trial, DIRECT-MT, was a noninferiority study. They had 650 patients, and they just reached noninferiority,” he said. “In MR CLEAN NO IV, we were aiming for superiority, and we had fewer patients – 540. We didn’t show superiority, and we didn’t have quite enough patients to show noninferiority.”

He added that, considering all the four studies together, the results look very similar and suggest no difference between the two approaches.
 

Individualized approach probable

Dr. Majoie suggested that different patients may be suitable for the different approaches.

“I think we are heading for individualized treatment. If we have a young patient and the angiography suite is ready, we could probably skip tPA, but it would be for the neurologist/neuroradiologist to make individualized decisions on this,” he said. “We need to look at subgroups for more information.”

Another large trial that investigated this issue, SWIFT-DIRECT, is expected to be presented later this year. An Australian trial, DIRECT-SAFE, is ongoing and is at an early stage of recruitment.

Dr. Roos said that the data from all the trials will be combined for a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of the two approaches in various subgroups.

Commenting on the study was cochair of the ISC session at which it was presented, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, N.J.

“Putting these results together with the previous Asian studies, I think we can say that direct thrombectomy without tPA is clearly not superior to the combined approach of tPA plus thrombectomy,” he said.

Dr. Jovin explained that, in theory, direct thrombectomy could be faster than the combined approach and that the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage could be lower. But neither of these two possible benefits were seen in this study.

He agreed with Dr. Roos that MR CLEAN NO IV could have failed to show noninferiority of the direct strategy because the sample was not large enough.

“The results of the two approaches are very similar in this study and in the Asian studies, so it doesn’t appear that tPA adds very much, and it is associated with a significant increase in costs,” he said.

“The answer will probably be that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and we may end up using different approaches for different patient groups,” Dr. Jovin added. “Information on this will come from subgroups analyses from these trials.”

MR CLEAN NO-IV trial was part of the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation), the Brain Foundation Netherlands, Medtronic, Health-Holland, and Top Sector Life Sciences. The study received additional unrestricted funding from Stryker European Operations. Dr. Roos and Dr. Majoie are shareholders of Nico Lab.

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

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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