Rheumatology News

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.

Zbynek Pospisil/iStock/Getty Images

Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.

The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.

However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”

“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.

Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
 

No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D

As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).

Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.

They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D₃, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.

The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.

Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.

Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.

Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.

A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
 

Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups

In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.

He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.

“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.

Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.

“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.

“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
 

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

Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.

Zbynek Pospisil/iStock/Getty Images

Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.

The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.

However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”

“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.

Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
 

No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D

As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).

Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.

They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D₃, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.

The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.

Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.

Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.

Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.

A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
 

Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups

In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.

He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.

“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.

Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.

“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.

“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
 

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

Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.

Zbynek Pospisil/iStock/Getty Images

Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.

The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.

However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”

“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.

Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
 

No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D

As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).

Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.

They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D₃, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.

The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.

Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.

Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.

Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.

A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
 

Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups

In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.

He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.

“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.

Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.

“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.

“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
 

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

A Spanish survey of COVID-19 patients suggests that upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) does not affect in-hospital mortality. It also found that fewer COVID-19–positive patients underwent endoscopies, but there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality outcome as a result of delays.

“In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with upper-GI bleeding seemed to be more influenced by COVID-19 than by upper-GI bleeding, and that’s something I think is important for us to know,” Gyanprakash Ketwaroo, MD, associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.

The results weren’t a surprise, but they do provide some reassurance. “It’s probably what I expected. Initially, we thought there might be some COVID-19 related (GI) lesions, but that didn’t seem to be borne out. So we thought the bleeding was related to (the patient) being in a hospital or the typical reasons for bleeding. It’s also what I expected that less endoscopies would be performed in these patients, and even though fewer endoscopies were performed, the outcomes were still similar. I think it’s what most people expected,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.

The study was published online Nov. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, and led by Rebeca González González, MD, of Severo Ochoa University Hospital in Leganés, Madrid, and Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, MD, of Reina Sofia University General Hospital in Murcia, Spain. The researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 71,904 COVID-19 patients at 62 emergency departments in Spain, and compared 83 patients who had COVID-19 and UGB to two control groups: 249 randomly selected COVID-19 patients without UGB, and 249 randomly selected non-COVID-19 patients with UGB.

They found that 1.11% of COVID-19 patients presented with UGB, compared with 1.78% of non-COVID-19 patients at emergency departments. In patients with COVID-19, risk of UGB was associated with hemoglobin values < 10 g/L (odds ratio [OR], 34.255, 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.752-92.021), abdominal pain (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 5.092-25.944), and systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg (OR, 11.096; 95% CI, 2.975-41.390).

Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, those COVID-19 patients with UGB were more likely to have interstitial lung infiltrates (OR, 66.42; 95% CI, 15.364-287.223) and ground-glass opacities (OR, 21.27; 95% CI, 9.720-46.567) in chest radiograph, as well as fever (OR, 34.67; 95% CI, 11.719-102.572) and cough (OR, 26.4; 95% CI, 8.845-78.806).

Gastroscopy and endoscopic procedures were lower in patients with COVID-19 than in the general population (gastroscopy OR, 0.269; 95% CI, 0.160-0.453: endoscopy OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.165-0.623). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to endoscopic findings. After adjustment for age and sex, the only significant difference between COVID-19 patients with UGB and COVID-19 patients without UGB was a higher rate of intensive care unit admission (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.16-7.65). Differences between COVID-19 patients with UGB and non–COVID-19 patients with UGB included higher rates of ICU admission (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.28-8.47), prolonged hospitalizations (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15-3.55), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09-3.86).

UGB development was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.59-2.19).

A limitation to the study it was that it was performed in Spain, where endoscopies are performed in the emergency department, and where there are different thresholds for admission to the intensive care unit than in the United States.

The authors did not report a funding source. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: González González R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001465.

A Spanish survey of COVID-19 patients suggests that upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) does not affect in-hospital mortality. It also found that fewer COVID-19–positive patients underwent endoscopies, but there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality outcome as a result of delays.

“In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with upper-GI bleeding seemed to be more influenced by COVID-19 than by upper-GI bleeding, and that’s something I think is important for us to know,” Gyanprakash Ketwaroo, MD, associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.

The results weren’t a surprise, but they do provide some reassurance. “It’s probably what I expected. Initially, we thought there might be some COVID-19 related (GI) lesions, but that didn’t seem to be borne out. So we thought the bleeding was related to (the patient) being in a hospital or the typical reasons for bleeding. It’s also what I expected that less endoscopies would be performed in these patients, and even though fewer endoscopies were performed, the outcomes were still similar. I think it’s what most people expected,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.

The study was published online Nov. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, and led by Rebeca González González, MD, of Severo Ochoa University Hospital in Leganés, Madrid, and Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, MD, of Reina Sofia University General Hospital in Murcia, Spain. The researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 71,904 COVID-19 patients at 62 emergency departments in Spain, and compared 83 patients who had COVID-19 and UGB to two control groups: 249 randomly selected COVID-19 patients without UGB, and 249 randomly selected non-COVID-19 patients with UGB.

They found that 1.11% of COVID-19 patients presented with UGB, compared with 1.78% of non-COVID-19 patients at emergency departments. In patients with COVID-19, risk of UGB was associated with hemoglobin values < 10 g/L (odds ratio [OR], 34.255, 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.752-92.021), abdominal pain (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 5.092-25.944), and systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg (OR, 11.096; 95% CI, 2.975-41.390).

Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, those COVID-19 patients with UGB were more likely to have interstitial lung infiltrates (OR, 66.42; 95% CI, 15.364-287.223) and ground-glass opacities (OR, 21.27; 95% CI, 9.720-46.567) in chest radiograph, as well as fever (OR, 34.67; 95% CI, 11.719-102.572) and cough (OR, 26.4; 95% CI, 8.845-78.806).

Gastroscopy and endoscopic procedures were lower in patients with COVID-19 than in the general population (gastroscopy OR, 0.269; 95% CI, 0.160-0.453: endoscopy OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.165-0.623). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to endoscopic findings. After adjustment for age and sex, the only significant difference between COVID-19 patients with UGB and COVID-19 patients without UGB was a higher rate of intensive care unit admission (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.16-7.65). Differences between COVID-19 patients with UGB and non–COVID-19 patients with UGB included higher rates of ICU admission (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.28-8.47), prolonged hospitalizations (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15-3.55), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09-3.86).

UGB development was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.59-2.19).

A limitation to the study it was that it was performed in Spain, where endoscopies are performed in the emergency department, and where there are different thresholds for admission to the intensive care unit than in the United States.

The authors did not report a funding source. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: González González R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001465.

A Spanish survey of COVID-19 patients suggests that upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) does not affect in-hospital mortality. It also found that fewer COVID-19–positive patients underwent endoscopies, but there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality outcome as a result of delays.

“In-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with upper-GI bleeding seemed to be more influenced by COVID-19 than by upper-GI bleeding, and that’s something I think is important for us to know,” Gyanprakash Ketwaroo, MD, associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.

The results weren’t a surprise, but they do provide some reassurance. “It’s probably what I expected. Initially, we thought there might be some COVID-19 related (GI) lesions, but that didn’t seem to be borne out. So we thought the bleeding was related to (the patient) being in a hospital or the typical reasons for bleeding. It’s also what I expected that less endoscopies would be performed in these patients, and even though fewer endoscopies were performed, the outcomes were still similar. I think it’s what most people expected,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.

The study was published online Nov. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, and led by Rebeca González González, MD, of Severo Ochoa University Hospital in Leganés, Madrid, and Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, MD, of Reina Sofia University General Hospital in Murcia, Spain. The researchers retrospectively analyzed data on 71,904 COVID-19 patients at 62 emergency departments in Spain, and compared 83 patients who had COVID-19 and UGB to two control groups: 249 randomly selected COVID-19 patients without UGB, and 249 randomly selected non-COVID-19 patients with UGB.

They found that 1.11% of COVID-19 patients presented with UGB, compared with 1.78% of non-COVID-19 patients at emergency departments. In patients with COVID-19, risk of UGB was associated with hemoglobin values < 10 g/L (odds ratio [OR], 34.255, 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.752-92.021), abdominal pain (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 5.092-25.944), and systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg (OR, 11.096; 95% CI, 2.975-41.390).

Compared with non-COVID-19 patients with UGB, those COVID-19 patients with UGB were more likely to have interstitial lung infiltrates (OR, 66.42; 95% CI, 15.364-287.223) and ground-glass opacities (OR, 21.27; 95% CI, 9.720-46.567) in chest radiograph, as well as fever (OR, 34.67; 95% CI, 11.719-102.572) and cough (OR, 26.4; 95% CI, 8.845-78.806).

Gastroscopy and endoscopic procedures were lower in patients with COVID-19 than in the general population (gastroscopy OR, 0.269; 95% CI, 0.160-0.453: endoscopy OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.165-0.623). There was no difference between the two groups with respect to endoscopic findings. After adjustment for age and sex, the only significant difference between COVID-19 patients with UGB and COVID-19 patients without UGB was a higher rate of intensive care unit admission (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.16-7.65). Differences between COVID-19 patients with UGB and non–COVID-19 patients with UGB included higher rates of ICU admission (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.28-8.47), prolonged hospitalizations (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15-3.55), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09-3.86).

UGB development was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.59-2.19).

A limitation to the study it was that it was performed in Spain, where endoscopies are performed in the emergency department, and where there are different thresholds for admission to the intensive care unit than in the United States.

The authors did not report a funding source. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: González González R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001465.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.