Neurology Reviews

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

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

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

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

Unanswered questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advantages beyond the numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BNT162b2 vaccine trial

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

Questions remain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innate and adaptive immunity

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

What about herd immunity?

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

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

Am I safe from reinfection?

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

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

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

So, what should I do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innate and adaptive immunity

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

What about herd immunity?

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

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

Am I safe from reinfection?

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

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

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

So, what should I do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innate and adaptive immunity

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

What about herd immunity?

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

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

Am I safe from reinfection?

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

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

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

So, what should I do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA vaccines in the lead

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

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

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

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

Individuals who have hypertension at any age are more likely to experience more rapid cognitive decline compared with their counterparts with normal blood pressure, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 15,000 participants, hypertension during middle age was associated with memory decline, and onset at later ages was linked to worsening memory and global cognition.

The investigators found that prehypertension, defined as systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg, was also linked to accelerated cognitive decline.

Although duration of hypertension was not associated with any marker of cognitive decline, blood pressure control “can substantially reduce hypertension’s deleterious effect on the pace of cognitive decline,” said study investigator Sandhi M. Barreto, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Dec. 14 in Hypertension.
 

Unanswered questions

Hypertension is an established and highly prevalent risk factor for cognitive decline, but the age at which it begins to affect cognition is unclear. Previous research suggests that onset during middle age is associated with more harmful cognitive effects than onset in later life. One reason for this apparent difference may be that the duration of hypertension influences the magnitude of cognitive decline, the researchers noted.

Other studies have shown that prehypertension is associated with damage to certain organs, but its effects on cognition are uncertain. In addition, the effect of good blood pressure control with antihypertensive medications and the impact on cognition are also unclear.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the ongoing, multicenter ELSA-Brasil study. ELSA-Brasil follows 15,105 civil servants between the ages of 35 and 74 years. Dr. Barreto and team assessed data from visit 1, which was conducted between 2008 and 2010, and visit 2, which was conducted between 2012 and 2014.

At each visit, participants underwent a memory test, a verbal fluency test, and the Trail Making Test Part B. The investigators calculated Z scores for these tests to derive a global cognitive score.

Blood pressure was measured on the right arm, and hypertension status, age at the time of hypertension diagnosis, duration of hypertension diagnosis, hypertension treatment, and control status were recorded. Other covariables included sex, education, race, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, and total cholesterol level.

The researchers excluded patients who did not undergo cognitive testing at visit 2, those who had a history of stroke at baseline, and those who initiated antihypertensive medications despite having normotension. After exclusions, the analysis included 7,063 participants (approximately 55% were women, 15% were Black).

At visit 1, the mean age of the group was 58.9 years, and 53.4% of participants had 14 or more years of education. In addition, 22% had prehypertension, and 46.8% had hypertension. The median duration of hypertension was 7 years; 29.8% of participants with hypertension were diagnosed with the condition during middle age.

Of those who reported having hypertension at visit 1, 7.3% were not taking any antihypertensive medication. Among participants with hypertension who were taking antihypertensives, 31.2% had uncontrolled blood pressure.
 

Independent predictor

Results showed that prehypertension independently predicted a significantly greater decline in verbal fluency (Z score, –0.0095; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0049; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure.

At middle age, hypertension was associated with a steeper decline in memory (Z score, –0.0072; P < .05) compared with normal blood pressure. At older ages, hypertension was linked to a steeper decline in both memory (Z score, –0.0151; P < .001) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0080; P < .01). Duration of hypertension, however, did not significantly predict changes in cognition (P < .109).

Among those with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications, those with uncontrolled blood pressure experienced greater declines in rapid memory (Z score, –0.0126; P < .01) and global cognitive score (Z score, –0.0074; P < .01) than did those with controlled blood pressure.

The investigators noted that the study participants had a comparatively high level of education, which has been shown to “boost cognitive reserve and lessen the speed of age-related cognitive decline,” Dr. Barreto said. However, “our results indicate that the effect of hypertension on cognitive decline affects individuals of all educational levels similarly,” she said.

Dr. Barreto noted that the findings have two major clinical implications. First, “maintaining blood pressure below prehypertension levels is important to preserve cognitive function or delay cognitive decline,” she said. Secondly, “in hypertensive individuals, keeping blood pressure under control is essential to reduce the speed of cognitive decline.”

The researchers plan to conduct further analyses of the data to clarify the observed relationship between memory and verbal fluency. They also plan to examine how hypertension affects long-term executive function.
 

‘Continuum of risk’

Commenting on the study, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, adjunct professor of neurology (stroke and neurocritical care) at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that, so far, research suggests that the risk for stroke associated with blood pressure levels should be understood as representing a continuum rather than as being associated with several discrete points.

“The same may hold true for cognitive decline and dementia. There may be a continuum of risk whereby persons even at so-called elevated but relatively lower levels of blood pressure based on a continuous scale are at risk,” said Dr. Gorelick, who was not involved with the current study.

The investigators relied on a large and well-studied population of civil servants. However, the population’s relative youth and high level of education may limit the generalizability of the findings, he noted. In addition, the follow-up time was relatively short.

“The hard endpoint of dementia was not studied but would be of interest to enhance our understanding of the influence of blood pressure elevation on cognitive decline or dementia during a longer follow-up of the cohort,” Dr. Gorelick said.

The findings also suggest the need to better understand mechanisms that link blood pressure elevation with cognitive decline, he added.

They indicate “the need for additional clinical trials to better elucidate blood pressure lowering targets for cognitive preservation in different groups of persons at risk,” such as those with normal cognition, those with mild cognitive impairment, and those with dementia, said Dr. Gorelick. “For example, is it safe and efficacious to lower blood pressure in persons with more advanced cognitive impairment or dementia?” he asked.

The study was funded by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel. Dr. Barreto has received support from the Research Agency of the State of Minas Gerais. Although Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the ELSA-Brasil cohort study, he serves on a data monitoring committee for a trial of a blood pressure–lowering agent in the preservation of cognition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antibody treatments underutilized

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

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

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

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

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antibody treatments underutilized

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

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

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

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

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antibody treatments underutilized

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

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

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

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

Up to 3 billion vaccine doses possible

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Penumbra has issued an urgent recall of all configurations of the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with Xtra Flex technology (JET 7 Xtra Flex), owing to the risk for “unexpected death or serious injury” during use for clot removal in stroke patients.

“All users should stop using this device, and facilities should remove these devices from inventory,” the recall notice, posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website, advises.

The recall covers the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, which was cleared for use in June 2019, and the JET 7MAX configuration (which includes the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter and MAX delivery device), which was cleared in February of this year.

The recall does not apply to the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with standard tip.

The FDA says it has received over 200 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, including reports of deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions.

Twenty of these MDRs describe 14 unique patient deaths. Other MDRs describe serious patient injury, such as vessel damage, hemorrhage, and cerebral infarction.

Device malfunctions described in the reports include ballooning, expansion, rupture, breakage or complete separation, and exposure of internal support coils near the distal tip region of the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter.

According to the FDA, bench testing by the manufacturer, in which the catheter distal tip is plugged and pressurized to failure, indicates that the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter is not able to withstand the same burst pressures to failure as the manufacturer’s other large-bore aspiration catheters used to remove thrombus for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Penumbra’s urgent medical device recall letter advises health care providers and facilities to remove and quarantine all unused devices covered by this recall, to complete the product identification and return form, and to return all products to Penumbra in accordance with instructions provided.

For questions regarding this recall, contact Penumbra customer service by phone at 888-272-4606 or by email at notification@penumbrainc.com.

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

Penumbra has issued an urgent recall of all configurations of the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with Xtra Flex technology (JET 7 Xtra Flex), owing to the risk for “unexpected death or serious injury” during use for clot removal in stroke patients.

“All users should stop using this device, and facilities should remove these devices from inventory,” the recall notice, posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website, advises.

The recall covers the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, which was cleared for use in June 2019, and the JET 7MAX configuration (which includes the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter and MAX delivery device), which was cleared in February of this year.

The recall does not apply to the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with standard tip.

The FDA says it has received over 200 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, including reports of deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions.

Twenty of these MDRs describe 14 unique patient deaths. Other MDRs describe serious patient injury, such as vessel damage, hemorrhage, and cerebral infarction.

Device malfunctions described in the reports include ballooning, expansion, rupture, breakage or complete separation, and exposure of internal support coils near the distal tip region of the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter.

According to the FDA, bench testing by the manufacturer, in which the catheter distal tip is plugged and pressurized to failure, indicates that the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter is not able to withstand the same burst pressures to failure as the manufacturer’s other large-bore aspiration catheters used to remove thrombus for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Penumbra’s urgent medical device recall letter advises health care providers and facilities to remove and quarantine all unused devices covered by this recall, to complete the product identification and return form, and to return all products to Penumbra in accordance with instructions provided.

For questions regarding this recall, contact Penumbra customer service by phone at 888-272-4606 or by email at notification@penumbrainc.com.

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

Penumbra has issued an urgent recall of all configurations of the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with Xtra Flex technology (JET 7 Xtra Flex), owing to the risk for “unexpected death or serious injury” during use for clot removal in stroke patients.

“All users should stop using this device, and facilities should remove these devices from inventory,” the recall notice, posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website, advises.

The recall covers the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, which was cleared for use in June 2019, and the JET 7MAX configuration (which includes the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter and MAX delivery device), which was cleared in February of this year.

The recall does not apply to the Penumbra JET 7 reperfusion catheter with standard tip.

The FDA says it has received over 200 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter, including reports of deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions.

Twenty of these MDRs describe 14 unique patient deaths. Other MDRs describe serious patient injury, such as vessel damage, hemorrhage, and cerebral infarction.

Device malfunctions described in the reports include ballooning, expansion, rupture, breakage or complete separation, and exposure of internal support coils near the distal tip region of the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter.

According to the FDA, bench testing by the manufacturer, in which the catheter distal tip is plugged and pressurized to failure, indicates that the JET 7 Xtra Flex catheter is not able to withstand the same burst pressures to failure as the manufacturer’s other large-bore aspiration catheters used to remove thrombus for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Penumbra’s urgent medical device recall letter advises health care providers and facilities to remove and quarantine all unused devices covered by this recall, to complete the product identification and return form, and to return all products to Penumbra in accordance with instructions provided.

For questions regarding this recall, contact Penumbra customer service by phone at 888-272-4606 or by email at notification@penumbrainc.com.

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