User login
FDA grants emergency use authorization to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
J&J COVID-19 vaccine wins unanimous backing of FDA panel
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.
Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).
But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.
The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.
But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.
“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.
Anaphylaxis case
FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and 20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.
“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.
Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.
This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.
However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.
Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.
The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.
The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.
The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.
“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.
At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.
“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”
No second-class vaccines
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.
The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.
“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.
Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.
During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.
“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”
She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.
“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.
Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.
At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.
Weakened standards?
Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.
They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.
“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.
“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.
Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.
The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”
“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.
“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.
Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).
But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.
The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.
But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.
“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.
Anaphylaxis case
FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and 20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.
“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.
Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.
This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.
However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.
Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.
The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.
The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.
The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.
“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.
At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.
“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”
No second-class vaccines
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.
The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.
“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.
Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.
During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.
“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”
She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.
“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.
Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.
At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.
Weakened standards?
Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.
They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.
“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.
“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.
Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.
The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”
“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.
“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.
Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).
But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.
The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.
But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.
“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”
The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.
Anaphylaxis case
FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and 20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.
“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.
Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.
This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.
However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.
Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.
The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.
The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.
The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.
“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.
At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.
“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”
No second-class vaccines
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.
The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.
“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.
Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.
During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.
“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”
She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.
“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.
Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.
At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.
Weakened standards?
Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.
They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.
“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.
“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.
Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.
The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”
“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.
“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PTSD prevalent in survivors of severe COVID-19
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in up to a third of patients who recover from severe COVID-19 infection, new research suggests.
A study of more than 300 patients who presented to the emergency department with the virus showed a 30.2% prevalence for PTSD 30-120 days after COVID recovery.
or having persistent medical symptoms after hospitalization.
Additional diagnoses, such as depressive and hypomanic episodes and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), were also present in some of the survivors.
“Previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with PTSD diagnoses in postillness stages, with meta-analytic findings indicating a prevalence of 32.2%,” write the investigators, led by Delfina Janiri, MD, department of psychiatry, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
However, data focused specifically on COVID-19 have been “piecemeal,” they add.
The findings were published online Feb. 18 in a research letter in JAMA Psychiatry.
A traumatic event
From April to October 2020, the researchers assessed 381 consecutive patients (100% white; 56.4% men; mean age, 55.3 years) who presented to the ED and subsequently participated in a health check at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli.
The mean length of stay for the 309 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 was 18.4 days.
Results showed that 115 participants (30.2%) had PTSD, based on DSM-5 criteria, and 55.7% of the women had the disorder. Additional diagnoses found in the full patient population included:
- Depressive episodes (17.3%).
- GAD (7%).
- Hypomanic episodes (0.7%).
- Psychotic disorders (0.2%).
Patients with PTSD had higher rates than those without PTSD of a previous history of psychiatric disorders (34.8% vs. 20.7%; P = .003) and of delirium or agitation during hospitalization, as assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (16.5% vs. 6.4%; P = .002).
In addition, 62.6% of those with PTSD had three or more persistent COVID-19 symptoms vs. 37.2% of their counterparts without PTSD (P < .001).
After logistic regression analyses, significant factors associated with a PTSD diagnosis were persistent medical symptoms (P = .002), delirium or agitation (P = .02), and being female (P = .02).
The investigators note that their results are “in line” with findings reported in research examining other traumatic events. This includes about 30% of Hurricane Katrina survivors who experienced PTSD, as did around 25% of survivors of the 2011 “Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.”
Study limitations cited include the “relatively small” size of the patient population, that it focused on only one participating center, and that it didn’t include a control group of non-COVID patients who reported to the ED.
“Further longitudinal studies are needed to tailor therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies,” the researchers write.
Dr. Janiri and four of the five other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other author, Gabriele Sani, MD, reported having received personal fees from Angelini Spa, Janssen, and Lundbeck outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in up to a third of patients who recover from severe COVID-19 infection, new research suggests.
A study of more than 300 patients who presented to the emergency department with the virus showed a 30.2% prevalence for PTSD 30-120 days after COVID recovery.
or having persistent medical symptoms after hospitalization.
Additional diagnoses, such as depressive and hypomanic episodes and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), were also present in some of the survivors.
“Previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with PTSD diagnoses in postillness stages, with meta-analytic findings indicating a prevalence of 32.2%,” write the investigators, led by Delfina Janiri, MD, department of psychiatry, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
However, data focused specifically on COVID-19 have been “piecemeal,” they add.
The findings were published online Feb. 18 in a research letter in JAMA Psychiatry.
A traumatic event
From April to October 2020, the researchers assessed 381 consecutive patients (100% white; 56.4% men; mean age, 55.3 years) who presented to the ED and subsequently participated in a health check at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli.
The mean length of stay for the 309 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 was 18.4 days.
Results showed that 115 participants (30.2%) had PTSD, based on DSM-5 criteria, and 55.7% of the women had the disorder. Additional diagnoses found in the full patient population included:
- Depressive episodes (17.3%).
- GAD (7%).
- Hypomanic episodes (0.7%).
- Psychotic disorders (0.2%).
Patients with PTSD had higher rates than those without PTSD of a previous history of psychiatric disorders (34.8% vs. 20.7%; P = .003) and of delirium or agitation during hospitalization, as assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (16.5% vs. 6.4%; P = .002).
In addition, 62.6% of those with PTSD had three or more persistent COVID-19 symptoms vs. 37.2% of their counterparts without PTSD (P < .001).
After logistic regression analyses, significant factors associated with a PTSD diagnosis were persistent medical symptoms (P = .002), delirium or agitation (P = .02), and being female (P = .02).
The investigators note that their results are “in line” with findings reported in research examining other traumatic events. This includes about 30% of Hurricane Katrina survivors who experienced PTSD, as did around 25% of survivors of the 2011 “Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.”
Study limitations cited include the “relatively small” size of the patient population, that it focused on only one participating center, and that it didn’t include a control group of non-COVID patients who reported to the ED.
“Further longitudinal studies are needed to tailor therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies,” the researchers write.
Dr. Janiri and four of the five other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other author, Gabriele Sani, MD, reported having received personal fees from Angelini Spa, Janssen, and Lundbeck outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in up to a third of patients who recover from severe COVID-19 infection, new research suggests.
A study of more than 300 patients who presented to the emergency department with the virus showed a 30.2% prevalence for PTSD 30-120 days after COVID recovery.
or having persistent medical symptoms after hospitalization.
Additional diagnoses, such as depressive and hypomanic episodes and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), were also present in some of the survivors.
“Previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with PTSD diagnoses in postillness stages, with meta-analytic findings indicating a prevalence of 32.2%,” write the investigators, led by Delfina Janiri, MD, department of psychiatry, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
However, data focused specifically on COVID-19 have been “piecemeal,” they add.
The findings were published online Feb. 18 in a research letter in JAMA Psychiatry.
A traumatic event
From April to October 2020, the researchers assessed 381 consecutive patients (100% white; 56.4% men; mean age, 55.3 years) who presented to the ED and subsequently participated in a health check at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli.
The mean length of stay for the 309 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 was 18.4 days.
Results showed that 115 participants (30.2%) had PTSD, based on DSM-5 criteria, and 55.7% of the women had the disorder. Additional diagnoses found in the full patient population included:
- Depressive episodes (17.3%).
- GAD (7%).
- Hypomanic episodes (0.7%).
- Psychotic disorders (0.2%).
Patients with PTSD had higher rates than those without PTSD of a previous history of psychiatric disorders (34.8% vs. 20.7%; P = .003) and of delirium or agitation during hospitalization, as assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (16.5% vs. 6.4%; P = .002).
In addition, 62.6% of those with PTSD had three or more persistent COVID-19 symptoms vs. 37.2% of their counterparts without PTSD (P < .001).
After logistic regression analyses, significant factors associated with a PTSD diagnosis were persistent medical symptoms (P = .002), delirium or agitation (P = .02), and being female (P = .02).
The investigators note that their results are “in line” with findings reported in research examining other traumatic events. This includes about 30% of Hurricane Katrina survivors who experienced PTSD, as did around 25% of survivors of the 2011 “Great Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.”
Study limitations cited include the “relatively small” size of the patient population, that it focused on only one participating center, and that it didn’t include a control group of non-COVID patients who reported to the ED.
“Further longitudinal studies are needed to tailor therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies,” the researchers write.
Dr. Janiri and four of the five other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other author, Gabriele Sani, MD, reported having received personal fees from Angelini Spa, Janssen, and Lundbeck outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New-onset arrhythmias low in COVID-19 and flu
Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.
On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.
“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.
“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu
Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.
Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.
Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).
Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.
Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).
Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.
But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).
“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.
Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.
“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.
Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.
On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.
“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.
“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu
Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.
Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.
Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).
Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.
Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).
Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.
But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).
“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.
Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.
“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.
Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.
On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.
“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.
“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu
Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.
Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.
Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).
Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.
Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).
Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.
But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).
“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.
Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.
“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.
Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.
FROM JACC: CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Variant found in NYC, Northeast
, according to CNN.
The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.
“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25.
On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.
Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.
In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.
“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.
“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.
In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.
Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.
“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.
The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.
Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.
At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.
But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to CNN.
The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.
“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25.
On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.
Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.
In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.
“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.
“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.
In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.
Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.
“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.
The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.
Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.
At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.
But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to CNN.
The variant, called B.1.526, has appeared in diverse neighborhoods in New York City and is “scattered in the Northeast,” the researchers said.
“We observed a steady increase in the detection rate from late December to mid-February, with an alarming rise to 12.7% in the past two weeks,” researchers from Columbia University Medical Center wrote in a report, which was published as a preprint Feb. 25.
On Feb. 22, the team released another preprint about the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants first identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively, which also mentions the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. Neither report has been peer reviewed.
Viruses mutate often, and several coronavirus variants have been identified and followed during the pandemic. Not all mutations are significant or are necessarily more contagious or dangerous. Researchers have been tracking the B.1.526 variant in the U.S. to find out if there are significant mutations that could be a cause for concern.
In the most recent preprints, the variant appears to have the same mutation found in B.1.351, called E484K, which may allow the virus to evade vaccines and the body’s natural immune response. The E484K mutation has shown up in at least 59 lines of the coronavirus, the research team said. That means the virus is evolving independently across the country and world, which could give the virus an advantage.
“A concern is that it might be beginning to overtake other strains, just like the U.K. and South African variants,” David Ho, MD, the lead study author and director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia, told CNN.
“However, we don’t have enough data to firm up this point now,” he said.
In a separate preprint posted Feb. 23, a research team at the California Institute of Technology developed a software tool that noticed the rise of B.1.526 in the New York region. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“It appears that the frequency of lineage B.1.526 has increased rapidly in New York,” they wrote.
Both teams also reported on another variant, called B.1.427/B.1.429, which appears to be increasing in California. The variant could be more contagious and cause more severe disease, they said, but the research is still in the early stages.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have tested virus samples from recent outbreaks in California and also found that the variant is becoming more common. The variant didn’t appear in samples from September but was in half of the samples by late January. It has a different pattern of mutations than other variants, and one called L452R may affect the spike protein on the virus and allow it attach to cells more easily.
“Our data shows that this is likely the key mutation that makes this variant more infectious,” Charles Chiu, MD, associate director of the clinical microbiology lab at UCSF, told CNN.
The team also noticed that patients with a B.1.427/B.1.429 infection had more severe COVID-19 cases and needed more oxygen, CNN reported. The team plans to post a preprint once public health officials in San Francisco review the report.
Right now, the CDC provides public data for three variants: B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1, which was first identified in Brazil. The U.S. has reported 1,881 B.1.1.7 cases across 45 states, 46 B.1.351 cases in 14 states, and five P.1 cases in four states, according to a CDC tally as of Feb. 23.
At the moment, lab officials aren’t able to tell patients or doctors whether someone has been infected by a variant, according to Kaiser Health News. High-level labs conduct genomic sequencing on samples and aren’t able to communicate information back to individual people.
But the Association of Public Health Laboratories and public health officials in several states are pushing for federal authorization of a test that could sequence the full genome and notify doctors. The test could be available in coming weeks, the news outlet reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Heroes: Nurses’ sacrifice in the age of COVID-19
This past year, the referrals to my private practice have taken a noticeable shift and caused me to pause.
More calls have come from nurses, many who work directly with COVID-19 patients, understandably seeking mental health treatment, or support. Especially in this time, nurses are facing trauma and stress that is unimaginable to many, myself included. Despite the collective efforts we have made as a society to recognize their work, I do not think we have given enough consideration to the enormous sacrifice nurses are currently undertaking to save our collective psyche.
As physicians and mental health providers, we have a glimpse into the complexities and stressors of medical treatment. In our line of work, we support patients with trauma on a regular basis. We feel deeply connected to patients, some of whom we have treated until the end of their lives. Despite that, I am not sure that I, or anyone, can truly comprehend what nurses face in today’s climate of care.
There is no denying that doctors are of value to our system, but our service has limits; nurses and doctors operate as two sides to a shared coin. As doctors, we diagnose and prescribe, while nurses explain and dispense. As doctors, we talk to patients, while nurses comfort them. Imagine spending an entire year working in a hospital diligently wiping endotracheal tubes that are responsible for maintaining someone’s life. Imagine spending an entire year laboring through the heavy task of lifting patients to prone them in a position that may save their lives. Imagine spending an entire year holding the hands of comatose patients in hopes of maintaining a sense of humanity.
And this only begins to describe the tasks bestowed upon nurses. While doctors answer pagers or complete insurance authorization forms, nurses empathize and reassure scared and isolated patients. Imagine spending an entire year updating crying family members who cannot see their loved ones. Imagine spending an entire year explaining and pleading to the outside world that wearing a mask and washing hands would reduce the suffering that takes place inside the hospital walls.
Despite the uncertainties, pressures, and demands, nurses have continued, and will continue, to show up for their patients, shift by shift. It takes a tragic number of deaths for the nurses I see in my practice to share that they have lost count. These numbers reflect people they held to feed, carried to prevent ulcers, wiped for decency, caressed for compassion, probed with IVs and tubes, monitored for signs of life, and warmed with blankets. If love were in any job description, it would fall under that of a nurse.
And we can’t ignore the fact that all the lives lost by COVID-19 had family. Family members who, without ever stepping foot in the hospital, needed a place to be heard, a place to receive explanation, and a place for reassurance. This invaluable place is cultivated by nurses. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses share messages of hope, love, and fear between patients and family. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses orchestrate visits and last goodbyes.
There is no denying that we have all been affected by this shared human experience. But the pause we owe our nurses feels long overdue, and of great importance. Nurses need a space to be heard, to be comforted, to be recognized. They come to our practices, trying to contain the world’s angst, while also navigating for themselves what it means to go through what they are going through. They hope that by coming to see us, they will find the strength to go back another day, another week, another month. Sometimes, they come to talk about everything but the job, in hopes that by talking about more mundane problems, they will feel “normal” and reconnected.
I hope that our empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard will allow them to feel heard.1 I hope that our warmth, concern, and hopefulness provide a welcoming place to voice sadness, anger, and fears.2 I hope that our processing of traumatic memory, our challenge to avoid inaccurate self-blaming beliefs, and our encouragement to create more thought-out conclusions will allow them to understand what is happening more accurately.3
Yet, I worry. I worry that society hasn’t been particularly successful with helping prior generations of heroes. From war veterans, to Sept. 11, 2001, firefighters, it seems that we have repeated mistakes. My experience with veterans in particular has taught me that for many who are suffering, it feels like society has broken its very fabric by being bystanders to the pain.
But suffering and tragedy are an inevitable part of the human experience that we share. What we can keep sight of is this: As physicians, we work with nurses. We are witnessing firsthand the impossible sacrifice they are taking and the limits of resilience. Let us not be too busy to stop and give recognition where and when it is due. Let us listen and learn from our past, and present, heroes. And let us never forget to extend our own hand to those who make a living extending theirs.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.
References
1. Rogers CR. J Consult Psychol. 1957;21(2):95-103.
2. Mallo CJ, Mintz DL. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;41(1):13-37.
3. Resick PA et al. Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD: A Comprehensive Manual. Guilford Publications, 2016.
This past year, the referrals to my private practice have taken a noticeable shift and caused me to pause.
More calls have come from nurses, many who work directly with COVID-19 patients, understandably seeking mental health treatment, or support. Especially in this time, nurses are facing trauma and stress that is unimaginable to many, myself included. Despite the collective efforts we have made as a society to recognize their work, I do not think we have given enough consideration to the enormous sacrifice nurses are currently undertaking to save our collective psyche.
As physicians and mental health providers, we have a glimpse into the complexities and stressors of medical treatment. In our line of work, we support patients with trauma on a regular basis. We feel deeply connected to patients, some of whom we have treated until the end of their lives. Despite that, I am not sure that I, or anyone, can truly comprehend what nurses face in today’s climate of care.
There is no denying that doctors are of value to our system, but our service has limits; nurses and doctors operate as two sides to a shared coin. As doctors, we diagnose and prescribe, while nurses explain and dispense. As doctors, we talk to patients, while nurses comfort them. Imagine spending an entire year working in a hospital diligently wiping endotracheal tubes that are responsible for maintaining someone’s life. Imagine spending an entire year laboring through the heavy task of lifting patients to prone them in a position that may save their lives. Imagine spending an entire year holding the hands of comatose patients in hopes of maintaining a sense of humanity.
And this only begins to describe the tasks bestowed upon nurses. While doctors answer pagers or complete insurance authorization forms, nurses empathize and reassure scared and isolated patients. Imagine spending an entire year updating crying family members who cannot see their loved ones. Imagine spending an entire year explaining and pleading to the outside world that wearing a mask and washing hands would reduce the suffering that takes place inside the hospital walls.
Despite the uncertainties, pressures, and demands, nurses have continued, and will continue, to show up for their patients, shift by shift. It takes a tragic number of deaths for the nurses I see in my practice to share that they have lost count. These numbers reflect people they held to feed, carried to prevent ulcers, wiped for decency, caressed for compassion, probed with IVs and tubes, monitored for signs of life, and warmed with blankets. If love were in any job description, it would fall under that of a nurse.
And we can’t ignore the fact that all the lives lost by COVID-19 had family. Family members who, without ever stepping foot in the hospital, needed a place to be heard, a place to receive explanation, and a place for reassurance. This invaluable place is cultivated by nurses. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses share messages of hope, love, and fear between patients and family. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses orchestrate visits and last goodbyes.
There is no denying that we have all been affected by this shared human experience. But the pause we owe our nurses feels long overdue, and of great importance. Nurses need a space to be heard, to be comforted, to be recognized. They come to our practices, trying to contain the world’s angst, while also navigating for themselves what it means to go through what they are going through. They hope that by coming to see us, they will find the strength to go back another day, another week, another month. Sometimes, they come to talk about everything but the job, in hopes that by talking about more mundane problems, they will feel “normal” and reconnected.
I hope that our empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard will allow them to feel heard.1 I hope that our warmth, concern, and hopefulness provide a welcoming place to voice sadness, anger, and fears.2 I hope that our processing of traumatic memory, our challenge to avoid inaccurate self-blaming beliefs, and our encouragement to create more thought-out conclusions will allow them to understand what is happening more accurately.3
Yet, I worry. I worry that society hasn’t been particularly successful with helping prior generations of heroes. From war veterans, to Sept. 11, 2001, firefighters, it seems that we have repeated mistakes. My experience with veterans in particular has taught me that for many who are suffering, it feels like society has broken its very fabric by being bystanders to the pain.
But suffering and tragedy are an inevitable part of the human experience that we share. What we can keep sight of is this: As physicians, we work with nurses. We are witnessing firsthand the impossible sacrifice they are taking and the limits of resilience. Let us not be too busy to stop and give recognition where and when it is due. Let us listen and learn from our past, and present, heroes. And let us never forget to extend our own hand to those who make a living extending theirs.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.
References
1. Rogers CR. J Consult Psychol. 1957;21(2):95-103.
2. Mallo CJ, Mintz DL. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;41(1):13-37.
3. Resick PA et al. Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD: A Comprehensive Manual. Guilford Publications, 2016.
This past year, the referrals to my private practice have taken a noticeable shift and caused me to pause.
More calls have come from nurses, many who work directly with COVID-19 patients, understandably seeking mental health treatment, or support. Especially in this time, nurses are facing trauma and stress that is unimaginable to many, myself included. Despite the collective efforts we have made as a society to recognize their work, I do not think we have given enough consideration to the enormous sacrifice nurses are currently undertaking to save our collective psyche.
As physicians and mental health providers, we have a glimpse into the complexities and stressors of medical treatment. In our line of work, we support patients with trauma on a regular basis. We feel deeply connected to patients, some of whom we have treated until the end of their lives. Despite that, I am not sure that I, or anyone, can truly comprehend what nurses face in today’s climate of care.
There is no denying that doctors are of value to our system, but our service has limits; nurses and doctors operate as two sides to a shared coin. As doctors, we diagnose and prescribe, while nurses explain and dispense. As doctors, we talk to patients, while nurses comfort them. Imagine spending an entire year working in a hospital diligently wiping endotracheal tubes that are responsible for maintaining someone’s life. Imagine spending an entire year laboring through the heavy task of lifting patients to prone them in a position that may save their lives. Imagine spending an entire year holding the hands of comatose patients in hopes of maintaining a sense of humanity.
And this only begins to describe the tasks bestowed upon nurses. While doctors answer pagers or complete insurance authorization forms, nurses empathize and reassure scared and isolated patients. Imagine spending an entire year updating crying family members who cannot see their loved ones. Imagine spending an entire year explaining and pleading to the outside world that wearing a mask and washing hands would reduce the suffering that takes place inside the hospital walls.
Despite the uncertainties, pressures, and demands, nurses have continued, and will continue, to show up for their patients, shift by shift. It takes a tragic number of deaths for the nurses I see in my practice to share that they have lost count. These numbers reflect people they held to feed, carried to prevent ulcers, wiped for decency, caressed for compassion, probed with IVs and tubes, monitored for signs of life, and warmed with blankets. If love were in any job description, it would fall under that of a nurse.
And we can’t ignore the fact that all the lives lost by COVID-19 had family. Family members who, without ever stepping foot in the hospital, needed a place to be heard, a place to receive explanation, and a place for reassurance. This invaluable place is cultivated by nurses. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses share messages of hope, love, and fear between patients and family. Through Zoom and phone calls, nurses orchestrate visits and last goodbyes.
There is no denying that we have all been affected by this shared human experience. But the pause we owe our nurses feels long overdue, and of great importance. Nurses need a space to be heard, to be comforted, to be recognized. They come to our practices, trying to contain the world’s angst, while also navigating for themselves what it means to go through what they are going through. They hope that by coming to see us, they will find the strength to go back another day, another week, another month. Sometimes, they come to talk about everything but the job, in hopes that by talking about more mundane problems, they will feel “normal” and reconnected.
I hope that our empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard will allow them to feel heard.1 I hope that our warmth, concern, and hopefulness provide a welcoming place to voice sadness, anger, and fears.2 I hope that our processing of traumatic memory, our challenge to avoid inaccurate self-blaming beliefs, and our encouragement to create more thought-out conclusions will allow them to understand what is happening more accurately.3
Yet, I worry. I worry that society hasn’t been particularly successful with helping prior generations of heroes. From war veterans, to Sept. 11, 2001, firefighters, it seems that we have repeated mistakes. My experience with veterans in particular has taught me that for many who are suffering, it feels like society has broken its very fabric by being bystanders to the pain.
But suffering and tragedy are an inevitable part of the human experience that we share. What we can keep sight of is this: As physicians, we work with nurses. We are witnessing firsthand the impossible sacrifice they are taking and the limits of resilience. Let us not be too busy to stop and give recognition where and when it is due. Let us listen and learn from our past, and present, heroes. And let us never forget to extend our own hand to those who make a living extending theirs.
Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.
References
1. Rogers CR. J Consult Psychol. 1957;21(2):95-103.
2. Mallo CJ, Mintz DL. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;41(1):13-37.
3. Resick PA et al. Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD: A Comprehensive Manual. Guilford Publications, 2016.
Myocardial injury seen on MRI in 54% of recovered COVID-19 patients
About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.
“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.
The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.
Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.
No patients with “myocarditis-pattern” LGE had regional wall motion abnormalities, and neither admission nor peak troponin values were predictive of the diagnosis of myocarditis.
The results were published online Feb. 18 in the European Heart Journal.
Glass half full
Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.
“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.
In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”
She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”
The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.
“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”
Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.
“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.
His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”
He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.
“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
Largest study to date
The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.
Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.
Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.
Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2.
CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.
On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”
The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”
What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.
“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.
The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.
Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.
No patients with “myocarditis-pattern” LGE had regional wall motion abnormalities, and neither admission nor peak troponin values were predictive of the diagnosis of myocarditis.
The results were published online Feb. 18 in the European Heart Journal.
Glass half full
Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.
“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.
In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”
She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”
The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.
“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”
Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.
“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.
His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”
He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.
“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
Largest study to date
The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.
Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.
Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.
Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2.
CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.
On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”
The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”
What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About half of 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and elevated troponin levels had at least some evidence of myocardial injury on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 2 months later, a new study shows.
“Our results demonstrate that in this subset of patients surviving severe COVID-19 and with troponin elevation, ongoing localized myocardial inflammation, whilst less frequent than previously reported, remains present in a proportion of patients and may represent an emerging issue of clinical relevance,” wrote Marianna Fontana, MD, PhD, of University College London, and colleagues.
The cardiac abnormalities identified were classified as nonischemic (including “myocarditis-like” late gadolinium enhancement [LGE]) in 26% of the cohort; as related to ischemic heart disease (infarction or inducible ischemia) in 22%; and as dual pathology in 6%.
Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% of the 148 patients. In the 17 patients (11%) with LV dysfunction, only four had an ejection fraction below 35%. Of the nine patients whose LV dysfunction was related to myocardial infarction, six had a known history of ischemic heart disease.
No patients with “myocarditis-pattern” LGE had regional wall motion abnormalities, and neither admission nor peak troponin values were predictive of the diagnosis of myocarditis.
The results were published online Feb. 18 in the European Heart Journal.
Glass half full
Taking a “glass half full” approach, co–senior author Graham D. Cole, MD, PhD, noted on Twitter that nearly half the patients had no major cardiac abnormalities on CMR just 2 months after a bout with troponin-positive COVID-19.
“We think this is important: Even in a group who had been very sick with raised troponin, it was common to find no evidence of heart damage,” said Dr. Cole, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
“We believe our data challenge the hypothesis that chronic inflammation, diffuse fibrosis, or long-term LV dysfunction is a dominant feature in those surviving COVID-19,” the investigators concluded in their report.
In an interview, Dr. Fontana explained further: “It has been reported in an early ‘pathfinder’ study that two-thirds of patients recovered from COVID-19 had CMR evidence of abnormal findings with a high incidence of elevated T1 and T2 in keeping with diffuse fibrosis and edema. Our findings with a larger, multicenter study and better controls show low rates of heart impairment and much less ongoing inflammation, which is reassuring.”
She also noted that the different patterns of injury suggest that different mechanisms are at play, including the possibility that “at least some of the found damage might have been preexisting, because people with heart damage are more likely to get severe disease.”
The investigators, including first author Tushar Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, also noted that myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or fewer myocardial segments in 88% of cases with no associated ventricular dysfunction, and that biventricular function was no different than in those without myocarditis.
“We use the word ‘myocarditis-like’ but we don’t have histology,” Dr. Fontana said. “Our group actually suspects a lot of this will be microvascular clotting (microangiopathic thrombosis). This is exciting, as newer anticoagulation strategies – for example, those being tried in RECOVERY – may have benefit.”
Aloke V. Finn, MD, of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., wishes researchers would stop using the term myocarditis altogether to describe clinical or imaging findings in COVID-19.
“MRI can’t diagnose myocarditis. It is a specific diagnosis that requires, ideally, histology, as the investigators acknowledged,” Dr. Finn said in an interview.
His group at CVPath recently published data showing pathologic evidence of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection, as reported by theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“As a clinician, when I think of myocarditis, I look at the echo and an LV gram, and I see if there is a wall motion abnormality and troponin elevation, but with normal coronary arteries. And if all that is there, then I think about myocarditis in my differential diagnosis,” he said. “But in most of these cases, as the authors rightly point out, most patients did not have what is necessary to really entertain a diagnosis of myocarditis.”
He agreed with Dr. Fontana’s suggestion that what the CMR might be picking up in these survivors is microthrombi, as his group saw in their recent autopsy study.
“It’s very possible these findings are concordant with the recent autopsy studies done by my group and others in terms of detecting the presence of microthrombi, but we don’t know this for certain because no one has ever studied this entity before in the clinic and we don’t really know how microthrombi might appear on CMR.”
Largest study to date
The 148 participants (mean age, 64 years; 70% male) in the largest study to date to investigate convalescing COVID-19 patients who had elevated troponins – something identified early in the pandemic as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 – were treated at one of six hospitals in London.
Patients who had abnormal troponin levels were offered an MRI scan of the heart after discharge and were compared with those from a control group of patients who had not had COVID-19 and with 40 healthy volunteers.
Median length of stay was 9 days, and 32% of patients required ventilatory support in the intensive care unit.
Just over half the patients (57%) had hypertension, 7% had had a previous myocardial infarction, 34% had diabetes, 46% had hypercholesterolemia, and 24% were smokers. Mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2.
CMR follow-up was conducted a median of 68 days after confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis.
On Twitter, Dr. Cole noted that the findings are subject to both survivor bias and referral bias. “We didn’t scan frail patients where the clinician felt [CMR] was unlikely to inform management.”
The findings, said Dr. Fontana, “say nothing about what happens to people who are not hospitalized with COVID, or those who are hospitalized but without elevated troponin.”
What they do offer, particularly if replicated, is a way forward in identifying patients at higher or lower risk for long-term sequelae and inform strategies that could improve outcomes, she added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric COVID-19: Data to guide practice
With the daily stream of new information, it is difficult to keep up with data on how the coronavirus epidemic affects children and school attendance, as well as how pediatricians can advise parents. The following is a summary of recently published information about birth and infant outcomes, and symptoms seen in infants and children, along with a review of recent information on transmission in schools.
COVID-19 in newborns
In November 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published data from 16 jurisdictions detailing pregnancy and infant outcomes of more than 5,000 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data were collected from March to October 2020. More than 80% of the women found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified during their third trimester. The surveillance found that 12.9% of infants born to infected mothers were born preterm, compared with an expected rate in the population of approximately 10%, suggesting that third-trimester infection may be associated with an increase in premature birth. Among 610 infants born to infected mothers and tested for SARS-CoV-2 during their nursery stay, 2.6% were positive. The infant positivity rate was as high as 4.3% among infants who were born to women with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection within 2 weeks of the delivery date. No newborn infections were found among the infants whose mothers’ infection occurred more than 14 days before delivery. Current CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations are to test infants born to mothers with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Data on clinical characteristics of a series of hospitalized infants in Montreal was published in December 2020. The study identified infants 0-12 months old who were diagnosed or treated at a single Montreal hospital from February until May 2020. In all, 25 (2.0%) of 1,165 infants were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2, and approximately 8 of those were hospitalized; 85% had gastrointestinal symptoms and 81% had a fever. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were present in 59%, and none of the hospitalized infants required supplemental oxygen. The data overall support the idea that infants are generally only mildly symptomatic when infected, and respiratory symptoms do not appear to be the most prevalent finding.
COVID-19 in children
The lack of prominent respiratory symptoms among children with SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms was echoed in another study that evaluated more than 2,400 children in Alberta, Canada. Among the 1,987 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, one-third (35.9%) were asymptomatic. Some symptoms were not helpful in differentiating children who tested positive vs. those who tested negative. The frequency of muscle or joint pain, myalgia, malaise, and respiratory symptoms such as nasal congestion, difficulty breathing, and sore throat was indistinguishable between the SARS-CoV-2–infected and –noninfected children. However, anosmia was much more prevalent (7.7%) among those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared with 1.1% of those who were negative. Headache was present in 15.7% of those who were positive vs. 6.3% of those who were negative. Fever was slightly more prevalent, at 25.5% among the positive patients and 15% of the negative patients.
The authors calculated likelihood ratios for individual symptoms and found that almost all individual symptoms had likelihood ratios of 1:1.8 for testing positive. However, nausea and vomiting had a likelihood ratio of 5.5, and for anosmia it was 7.3. The combination of symptoms of nausea, nausea and vomiting, and headache produced a likelihood ratio of nearly 66. The authors suggest that these data on ambulatory children indicate that, in general, respiratory symptoms are not helpful for distinguishing patients who are likely to be positive, although the symptoms of nausea, headache, and both along with fever can be highly predictive. The authors propose that it may be more helpful for schools to focus on identifying children with combinations of these high-yield symptoms for potential testing and exclusion from school rather than on random or isolated respiratory symptoms.
COVID-19 in schools
Transmission risk in different settings is certainly something parents quiz pediatricians about, so data released in January and February 2021 may help provide some context. A CDC report on the experience of 17 schools in Wisconsin from August to November 2020 is illuminating. In that study, the SARS-CoV-2 case rate in students, school teachers, and staff members was 63% of the rate in the general public at the time, suggesting that the mitigation strategies used by the schools were effective. In addition, among the students who contracted SARS-CoV-2, only 5% of cases were attributable to school exposure. No cases of SARS-CoV-2 among faculty or staff were linked to school exposure.
Indeed, data released on Feb. 2, 2021, demonstrate that younger adults are the largest source of sustaining the epidemic. On the basis of data from August to October 2020, the opening of schools does not appear to be associated with population-level changes in SARS-CoV-2–attributable deaths. For October 2020, the authors estimate that 2.7% of infections were from children 0-9 years old, 7.1% from those ages 10-19 years, but 34% from those 20-34 years old and 38% from those 35-49 years old, by far the largest two groups contributing to spread. It should be noted that ages 20-49 years are the peak working years for adults, but the source of the data did not allow the authors to conclude whether infections were work related or social activity related. Their data do suggest that prioritizing vaccination of younger working-age adults may put more of a dent in the pandemic spread than vaccinating older individuals.
In a similar vein, a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies looked at household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and demonstrated an attack rate within households of 16.6%. Of note, secondary household attack rates were only 0.7% from asymptomatic cases and 18% from symptomatic cases, with spouses and adult household contacts having higher secondary attack rates than children in the household.
COVID-19 in student athletes
A recent MMWR report described a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak associated with a series of wrestling tournaments in Florida, held in December and January 2021. While everyone would like children to be able to participate in sports, such events potentially violate several of the precepts for preventing spread: Avoid close contact and don’t mix contacts from different schools. Moreover, the events occurred during some of the highest incident case rates in the counties where the tournaments took place.
On Dec. 4, 2020, the AAP released updated guidance for athletic activities and recommended cloth face coverings for student athletes during training, in competition, while traveling, and even while waiting on the sidelines and not actively playing. Notable exceptions to the recommendation were competitive cheerleading, gymnastics, wrestling, and water sports, where the risk for entanglement from face coverings was too high or was not practical.
Taken as a whole, the evolving data continue to show that school mitigation practices can be effective in reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 rates among schoolchildren more closely mirror community rates and are probably more influenced by what happens outside the schools than inside the schools.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the daily stream of new information, it is difficult to keep up with data on how the coronavirus epidemic affects children and school attendance, as well as how pediatricians can advise parents. The following is a summary of recently published information about birth and infant outcomes, and symptoms seen in infants and children, along with a review of recent information on transmission in schools.
COVID-19 in newborns
In November 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published data from 16 jurisdictions detailing pregnancy and infant outcomes of more than 5,000 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data were collected from March to October 2020. More than 80% of the women found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified during their third trimester. The surveillance found that 12.9% of infants born to infected mothers were born preterm, compared with an expected rate in the population of approximately 10%, suggesting that third-trimester infection may be associated with an increase in premature birth. Among 610 infants born to infected mothers and tested for SARS-CoV-2 during their nursery stay, 2.6% were positive. The infant positivity rate was as high as 4.3% among infants who were born to women with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection within 2 weeks of the delivery date. No newborn infections were found among the infants whose mothers’ infection occurred more than 14 days before delivery. Current CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations are to test infants born to mothers with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Data on clinical characteristics of a series of hospitalized infants in Montreal was published in December 2020. The study identified infants 0-12 months old who were diagnosed or treated at a single Montreal hospital from February until May 2020. In all, 25 (2.0%) of 1,165 infants were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2, and approximately 8 of those were hospitalized; 85% had gastrointestinal symptoms and 81% had a fever. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were present in 59%, and none of the hospitalized infants required supplemental oxygen. The data overall support the idea that infants are generally only mildly symptomatic when infected, and respiratory symptoms do not appear to be the most prevalent finding.
COVID-19 in children
The lack of prominent respiratory symptoms among children with SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms was echoed in another study that evaluated more than 2,400 children in Alberta, Canada. Among the 1,987 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, one-third (35.9%) were asymptomatic. Some symptoms were not helpful in differentiating children who tested positive vs. those who tested negative. The frequency of muscle or joint pain, myalgia, malaise, and respiratory symptoms such as nasal congestion, difficulty breathing, and sore throat was indistinguishable between the SARS-CoV-2–infected and –noninfected children. However, anosmia was much more prevalent (7.7%) among those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared with 1.1% of those who were negative. Headache was present in 15.7% of those who were positive vs. 6.3% of those who were negative. Fever was slightly more prevalent, at 25.5% among the positive patients and 15% of the negative patients.
The authors calculated likelihood ratios for individual symptoms and found that almost all individual symptoms had likelihood ratios of 1:1.8 for testing positive. However, nausea and vomiting had a likelihood ratio of 5.5, and for anosmia it was 7.3. The combination of symptoms of nausea, nausea and vomiting, and headache produced a likelihood ratio of nearly 66. The authors suggest that these data on ambulatory children indicate that, in general, respiratory symptoms are not helpful for distinguishing patients who are likely to be positive, although the symptoms of nausea, headache, and both along with fever can be highly predictive. The authors propose that it may be more helpful for schools to focus on identifying children with combinations of these high-yield symptoms for potential testing and exclusion from school rather than on random or isolated respiratory symptoms.
COVID-19 in schools
Transmission risk in different settings is certainly something parents quiz pediatricians about, so data released in January and February 2021 may help provide some context. A CDC report on the experience of 17 schools in Wisconsin from August to November 2020 is illuminating. In that study, the SARS-CoV-2 case rate in students, school teachers, and staff members was 63% of the rate in the general public at the time, suggesting that the mitigation strategies used by the schools were effective. In addition, among the students who contracted SARS-CoV-2, only 5% of cases were attributable to school exposure. No cases of SARS-CoV-2 among faculty or staff were linked to school exposure.
Indeed, data released on Feb. 2, 2021, demonstrate that younger adults are the largest source of sustaining the epidemic. On the basis of data from August to October 2020, the opening of schools does not appear to be associated with population-level changes in SARS-CoV-2–attributable deaths. For October 2020, the authors estimate that 2.7% of infections were from children 0-9 years old, 7.1% from those ages 10-19 years, but 34% from those 20-34 years old and 38% from those 35-49 years old, by far the largest two groups contributing to spread. It should be noted that ages 20-49 years are the peak working years for adults, but the source of the data did not allow the authors to conclude whether infections were work related or social activity related. Their data do suggest that prioritizing vaccination of younger working-age adults may put more of a dent in the pandemic spread than vaccinating older individuals.
In a similar vein, a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies looked at household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and demonstrated an attack rate within households of 16.6%. Of note, secondary household attack rates were only 0.7% from asymptomatic cases and 18% from symptomatic cases, with spouses and adult household contacts having higher secondary attack rates than children in the household.
COVID-19 in student athletes
A recent MMWR report described a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak associated with a series of wrestling tournaments in Florida, held in December and January 2021. While everyone would like children to be able to participate in sports, such events potentially violate several of the precepts for preventing spread: Avoid close contact and don’t mix contacts from different schools. Moreover, the events occurred during some of the highest incident case rates in the counties where the tournaments took place.
On Dec. 4, 2020, the AAP released updated guidance for athletic activities and recommended cloth face coverings for student athletes during training, in competition, while traveling, and even while waiting on the sidelines and not actively playing. Notable exceptions to the recommendation were competitive cheerleading, gymnastics, wrestling, and water sports, where the risk for entanglement from face coverings was too high or was not practical.
Taken as a whole, the evolving data continue to show that school mitigation practices can be effective in reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 rates among schoolchildren more closely mirror community rates and are probably more influenced by what happens outside the schools than inside the schools.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the daily stream of new information, it is difficult to keep up with data on how the coronavirus epidemic affects children and school attendance, as well as how pediatricians can advise parents. The following is a summary of recently published information about birth and infant outcomes, and symptoms seen in infants and children, along with a review of recent information on transmission in schools.
COVID-19 in newborns
In November 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published data from 16 jurisdictions detailing pregnancy and infant outcomes of more than 5,000 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data were collected from March to October 2020. More than 80% of the women found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified during their third trimester. The surveillance found that 12.9% of infants born to infected mothers were born preterm, compared with an expected rate in the population of approximately 10%, suggesting that third-trimester infection may be associated with an increase in premature birth. Among 610 infants born to infected mothers and tested for SARS-CoV-2 during their nursery stay, 2.6% were positive. The infant positivity rate was as high as 4.3% among infants who were born to women with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection within 2 weeks of the delivery date. No newborn infections were found among the infants whose mothers’ infection occurred more than 14 days before delivery. Current CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations are to test infants born to mothers with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Data on clinical characteristics of a series of hospitalized infants in Montreal was published in December 2020. The study identified infants 0-12 months old who were diagnosed or treated at a single Montreal hospital from February until May 2020. In all, 25 (2.0%) of 1,165 infants were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2, and approximately 8 of those were hospitalized; 85% had gastrointestinal symptoms and 81% had a fever. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were present in 59%, and none of the hospitalized infants required supplemental oxygen. The data overall support the idea that infants are generally only mildly symptomatic when infected, and respiratory symptoms do not appear to be the most prevalent finding.
COVID-19 in children
The lack of prominent respiratory symptoms among children with SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms was echoed in another study that evaluated more than 2,400 children in Alberta, Canada. Among the 1,987 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, one-third (35.9%) were asymptomatic. Some symptoms were not helpful in differentiating children who tested positive vs. those who tested negative. The frequency of muscle or joint pain, myalgia, malaise, and respiratory symptoms such as nasal congestion, difficulty breathing, and sore throat was indistinguishable between the SARS-CoV-2–infected and –noninfected children. However, anosmia was much more prevalent (7.7%) among those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared with 1.1% of those who were negative. Headache was present in 15.7% of those who were positive vs. 6.3% of those who were negative. Fever was slightly more prevalent, at 25.5% among the positive patients and 15% of the negative patients.
The authors calculated likelihood ratios for individual symptoms and found that almost all individual symptoms had likelihood ratios of 1:1.8 for testing positive. However, nausea and vomiting had a likelihood ratio of 5.5, and for anosmia it was 7.3. The combination of symptoms of nausea, nausea and vomiting, and headache produced a likelihood ratio of nearly 66. The authors suggest that these data on ambulatory children indicate that, in general, respiratory symptoms are not helpful for distinguishing patients who are likely to be positive, although the symptoms of nausea, headache, and both along with fever can be highly predictive. The authors propose that it may be more helpful for schools to focus on identifying children with combinations of these high-yield symptoms for potential testing and exclusion from school rather than on random or isolated respiratory symptoms.
COVID-19 in schools
Transmission risk in different settings is certainly something parents quiz pediatricians about, so data released in January and February 2021 may help provide some context. A CDC report on the experience of 17 schools in Wisconsin from August to November 2020 is illuminating. In that study, the SARS-CoV-2 case rate in students, school teachers, and staff members was 63% of the rate in the general public at the time, suggesting that the mitigation strategies used by the schools were effective. In addition, among the students who contracted SARS-CoV-2, only 5% of cases were attributable to school exposure. No cases of SARS-CoV-2 among faculty or staff were linked to school exposure.
Indeed, data released on Feb. 2, 2021, demonstrate that younger adults are the largest source of sustaining the epidemic. On the basis of data from August to October 2020, the opening of schools does not appear to be associated with population-level changes in SARS-CoV-2–attributable deaths. For October 2020, the authors estimate that 2.7% of infections were from children 0-9 years old, 7.1% from those ages 10-19 years, but 34% from those 20-34 years old and 38% from those 35-49 years old, by far the largest two groups contributing to spread. It should be noted that ages 20-49 years are the peak working years for adults, but the source of the data did not allow the authors to conclude whether infections were work related or social activity related. Their data do suggest that prioritizing vaccination of younger working-age adults may put more of a dent in the pandemic spread than vaccinating older individuals.
In a similar vein, a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies looked at household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and demonstrated an attack rate within households of 16.6%. Of note, secondary household attack rates were only 0.7% from asymptomatic cases and 18% from symptomatic cases, with spouses and adult household contacts having higher secondary attack rates than children in the household.
COVID-19 in student athletes
A recent MMWR report described a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak associated with a series of wrestling tournaments in Florida, held in December and January 2021. While everyone would like children to be able to participate in sports, such events potentially violate several of the precepts for preventing spread: Avoid close contact and don’t mix contacts from different schools. Moreover, the events occurred during some of the highest incident case rates in the counties where the tournaments took place.
On Dec. 4, 2020, the AAP released updated guidance for athletic activities and recommended cloth face coverings for student athletes during training, in competition, while traveling, and even while waiting on the sidelines and not actively playing. Notable exceptions to the recommendation were competitive cheerleading, gymnastics, wrestling, and water sports, where the risk for entanglement from face coverings was too high or was not practical.
Taken as a whole, the evolving data continue to show that school mitigation practices can be effective in reducing the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 rates among schoolchildren more closely mirror community rates and are probably more influenced by what happens outside the schools than inside the schools.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine cuts transmission, new data show
The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.
“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”
The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.
The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.
The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.
In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.
If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.
Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.
“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”
The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.
The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.
The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.
In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.
If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.
Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.
“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”
The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.
The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.
The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.
In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.
If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.
Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ob.gyns. report high burnout prior to pandemic
Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.
The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.
“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.
Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.
“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.
“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.
Burnout and suicidal thoughts
Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.
More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.
The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.
The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).
Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.
“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”
Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
Balance and self-care
The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).
Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.
“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.
“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”
Address burnout at individual and organizational levels
“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”
To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.
Find positivity and purpose
Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.
“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”
The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.
Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.
The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.
“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.
Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.
“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.
“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.
Burnout and suicidal thoughts
Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.
More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.
The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.
The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).
Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.
“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”
Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
Balance and self-care
The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).
Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.
“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.
“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”
Address burnout at individual and organizational levels
“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”
To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.
Find positivity and purpose
Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.
“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”
The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.
Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.
The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.
“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.
Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.
“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.
“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.
Burnout and suicidal thoughts
Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.
More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.
The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.
The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).
Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.
“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”
Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
Balance and self-care
The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).
Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.
“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.
“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”
Address burnout at individual and organizational levels
“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”
To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.
Find positivity and purpose
Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.
“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”
The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.