COVID-19 Updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intense Scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intense Scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intense Scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, who will be first in line? According to an “Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in October, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services, and Bureau of Prisons will all receive a direct allocation, but the distribution of those allocations will depend on the outcomes of an elaborately branched decision tree.

Although the DoD will distribute the vaccine directly to all of its personnel, including retirees and dependents, the plan for members of the Reserve and National Guard is not yet clear. Employees at VHA facilities will receive the vaccine from their departments. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced a “limited-supply phase” for distribution followed by a “general implementation phase.”

The CDC will provide the vaccine to tribal nations that have selected the IHS for distribution (as opposed to the state). According to Government Executive, a separate internal IHS plan suggests the agency would distribute immunizations to tens of thousands of health care and other essential workers, but it isn’t known whether that number includes all of the agency’s workers. 

The VA is likely to receive the largest distribution of vaccine doses, according to internal documents obtained by Government Executive. The agency has said it will only finalize its vaccine strategy after a candidate is approved for use. In a Nov. 17 press release, the VA said, “The plan will be a phased approach based on scientific and historical evidence, lessons learned from past pandemic vaccine plans and input from scientific experts both within and outside VA.”

However, the VA has been criticized for not publicizing a detailed vaccine distribution plan. Several Democrats on the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for instance, sent a cautionary letter to VA leaders on Nov. 23, saying, “For COVID-19 vaccine distribution to succeed there must be a well-organized plan to meet the needs of all veterans and their providers…. If the states and other federal agencies have already publicly released their plans, why is VA lagging behind?”

As with most federal and non-federal entities, the VA’s allotment of vaccine will be distributed in phases, based on availability and the number of those in the highest-risk populations, such as frontline health care workers and the elderly, within the organization. But the distribution strategy resembles a set of matryoshka dolls, with priorities nested within priorities.

Staff will be 4 of the first 5 populations to receive the vaccine. Employees at VA nursing homes and the 25 Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Centers also are due to receive the first batch, followed by veterans at those facilities. Next would come staff in emergency departments, COVID-19 ICUs, and COVID-19 non-ICUs. After that, employees in “other congregate living settings” and veterans aged > 85 years  would be vaccinated. Other employees critical in the COVID-19 response, such as police, would be next, followed by inpatient staff in other units and staff performing high-risk procedures. Finally, the priorities will be other groups of patients, veterans in other descending-age groups, and homeless veterans and homeless outreach workers.

The general thinking is that it makes more sense to vaccinate the health care workers first. However, even within that calculation there are further decisions to make. The VA has said it’s focusing on the highest-risk individuals for the first inoculations, but it has emphasized that it considers the risk of transmitting the virus to others above the personal risk of severe illness to the employees themselves.

The VA will not require employees to receive an inoculation, although it plans to encourage staff to do so to protect themselves and veterans they serve.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

COVID-19 infection rates have been nearly 4 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) when compared with those of non-Hispanic Whites, and AI/ANs are more than 4 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus. Some mitigation measures have been harder to maintain in Native American communities. Frequent handwashing is difficult when water is at a premium, and social distancing is not always possible when extended families—including elderly—may be living in a single residence.

So vaccination “remains the most promising intervention,” the Indian Health Service Vaccine Task Force wrote in its COVID-19 Pandemic Vaccine Plan, released in November. The plan details how the IHS health care system will prepare for and distribute a vaccine when one becomes available in the US.

The Vaccine Task Force was established by the IHS Headquarters Incident Command Structure, which was activated in early March to respond to COVID-19. In September, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began a series of consultations with tribes and urban Indian organizations for input on the plan, which aligns as well with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To “ensure that vaccines are effectively delivered throughout Indian Country in ways that make sense for tribal communities,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump Administration has given all tribal health programs and urban Indian organizations two ways to receive the vaccine: through the IHS or through the state.

The CDC, along with IHS, states, and tribes, are coordinating the distribution of a vaccine for federal sites, tribal health programs, and Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs). CDC has issued data requirements that all health care facilities must meet for COVID-19 vaccine administration, inventory, and monitoring.

“There are system-wide planning efforts in place to make sure we’re ready to implement vaccination activities as soon as a US Food and Drug Administration authorized or approved vaccine is available,” said IHS Director RADM Michael Weahkee in a press release. The program’s success, he said, depends on “the strong partnership between the federal government, tribes, and urban leaders.”

The list of IHS, tribal health programs, and UIOs facilities that will receive the COVID-19 vaccine from the IHS, broken down by IHS area, is available on the IHS coronavirus website.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services surveyed health care personnel in 27 hospitals and 7 medical control agencies that coordinate emergency medical services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Of 16,397 participants, 6.9% had COVID-19 antibodies (although only 2.7% reported a history of a positive real-time transcription polymerase chain reaction test); however, participants had about 6 times the odds of exposure to the virus at home when compared with the workplace. Of those who reported close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with confirmed COVID-19 for ≥ 10 minutes, seroprevalence was highest among those with exposure to a household member (34.3%).

The survey revealed a pattern that suggested community acquisition was a common underlying factor of infection risk, the researchers say. Workers were only more vulnerable at home and when they were closer to the metropolitan center. Seropositivity was more common within 9 miles of Detroit’s center, regardless of occupation and health care setting. The farther away from the center, the lower the seroprevalence.

By work location, seroprevalence was highest among participants who worked in hospital wards (8.8%) and lowest among those in police departments (3.9%). In hospitals, participants working in wards and EDs had higher seropositivity (8.8% and 8.1%, respectively) than did those in ICUs and ORs (6.1% and 4.5%, respectively). Nurses and nurse assistants were more likely to be seropositive than physicians. Nurse assistants had the highest incidence, regardless of where they worked.

Reducing community spread through population-based measures may directly protect healthcare workers on 2 fronts, the researchers say: reduced occupational exposure as a result of fewer infected patients in the less controlled workplace setting such as the ED, and reduced exposure in their homes and communities.

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

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

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

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘We can survive this’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

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

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

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

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

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

ACP extends membership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘We can survive this’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

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

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

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

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

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

ACP extends membership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘We can survive this’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

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

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

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

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

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

ACP extends membership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.