Damian McNamara

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

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

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

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

The season of conception does not affect whether more boys than girls are born, nor do temperatures in the environment, a large study reveals. Similarly, researchers found no connection with a location’s violent crime level, unemployment rate, or major events like Hurricane Katrina.

But certain chemical pollutants were related to fewer boys being born compared to girls when researchers looked at data for more than 3 million newborns over 8 years in the U.S. and another 3 million born over 30 years in Sweden.

“With data on births in 150 million people in the U.S. over 8 years and 9 million Swedes over 9 years, this is almost surely the largest study to date on the question of environmental factors and their influence on sex ratio at birth,” says Shanna Swan, PhD, who was not affiliated with the research

Variations in the annual sex birth ratio (SRB) – the number of boys born compared to the total birth rate – are well-accepted. Less clear is what things drive these changes.

Although not the first study to look for connections between major events or pollutants in the air, water, and land and the SRB, it is the first to mine two very large electronic medical record databases for answers, senior study author Andrey Rzhetsky, PhD, a professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago, tells this news organization.

The findings were published Dec. 2, 2021, in PLOS Computational Biology.

And even though the SRB did not vary significantly after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it did after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues found. The SRB was lower than expected 34 weeks after the mass shooting.
 

Location, location, location

The researchers also found the levels of chemical pollutants “varied remarkably” across different regions of the country. For example, lead in the land was elevated in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mideastern U.S. but not in the South. Also, the highest levels of total mercury in water samples was found mostly in Eastern states, especially in the Northeast.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues mapped these regional differences in many factors, including hydrazine. Hydrazine is a foaming agent used to make pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and as a propellant for spacecraft.

“Hydrazine appears to follow capricious, blotch-like shapes in the eastern U.S., each blotch likely centered at a factory emitting this pollutant,” the authors wrote.

To get a more complete picture, the investigators also compared changes in the SRB to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, and Statistics Sweden.

They found that aluminium in air, chromium in water, and total mercury levels drove the SRB up. By comparison, lead in soil and areas with a higher renter occupancy were linked to a lower SRB, or a higher proportion of girls being born.

Dr. Rzhetsky and colleagues also add to the evidence for a link between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the SRB. Previous findings conflict, the authors noted.

“Since the sample sizes of the studies published thus far were very small, our PCBs result would have substantially larger statistical power,” they said.

Several pollutants had no significant link to SRB in the study, including levels of lead or chromium in the air, arsenic in the soil, and cadmium in the air or water.
 

Consistent findings

That said, the research had limits.

“The magnitude is new in terms of number of births, and the statistical methods are unusually sophisticated, but the conclusions don’t really differ from much of what has been published,” says Dr. Swan, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The takeaway message that many examined exposures are associated with lower – and some with higher – SRBs is not new but consistent with other, smaller studies,” says Dr. Swan, who co-authored a Sept. 2021 study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower birth rates in Asia.

The data on environmental exposures “is, however, quite uneven, and only known at the ecologic and not the individual level,” she says. “We learn, for example, that SRB was significantly reduced ... among families living in areas with the highest septile of lead exposure but also in those among the highest septile of percent renter occupancy.”

“Evaluating these as to mechanism and plausibility is difficult,” Dr. Swan says.
 

More research warranted

The mechanism remains unknown, but the investigators suggested that female embryo pregnancies may end early in development, driving the SRB up. Also, male embryo deaths are more common in the late second or third trimester, at which point they would drive the SRB down. A third factor, maternal hormone levels around the time of conception, could also alter the SRB.

The associations between individual factors and SRB changes are just that – associations – not intended to be interpreted as “sex-specific selection mechanisms” causing the differences at this point, the authors noted. Further studies to confirm the associations are needed.

The research is a good stepping off point for future studies to look closer at the contribution of pollutants like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more, Dr. Rzhetsky says.

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

Pfizer asked the FDA on Thursday to expand emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine to children ages 5 to 11.

The request comes after the drugmaker submitted clinical trial data to the FDA on Sept. 28. Pfizer said the study of 2,268 children showed the vaccine was safe and produced a robust immune response.

Participants in the studies received a lower dose of the vaccine, 10 micrograms. Their response 2 weeks after a second dose was reportedly equal to the immune protection in a control group of 16- to 25-year-olds who received the fully approved 30-microgram doses.

Currently, the Pfizer EUA applies to 12- to 15-year-olds and people eligible for a Pfizer booster shot. The drugmaker received full FDA approval for the vaccine for Americans 16 years and older in August.

The filing for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds comes as overall cases of COVID-19 in the United States continue to decline. The decrease includes a drop in new cases in children for the fourth consecutive week, according to analysis of data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The next step is an FDA decision on whether to expand the current emergency use authorization (EUA) for teenagers to the younger age group.

Timing of any official word from the agency is unknown. But possibly in anticipation of today’s filing, the FDA already scheduled a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee for Oct. 25.

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

Pfizer asked the FDA on Thursday to expand emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine to children ages 5 to 11.

The request comes after the drugmaker submitted clinical trial data to the FDA on Sept. 28. Pfizer said the study of 2,268 children showed the vaccine was safe and produced a robust immune response.

Participants in the studies received a lower dose of the vaccine, 10 micrograms. Their response 2 weeks after a second dose was reportedly equal to the immune protection in a control group of 16- to 25-year-olds who received the fully approved 30-microgram doses.

Currently, the Pfizer EUA applies to 12- to 15-year-olds and people eligible for a Pfizer booster shot. The drugmaker received full FDA approval for the vaccine for Americans 16 years and older in August.

The filing for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds comes as overall cases of COVID-19 in the United States continue to decline. The decrease includes a drop in new cases in children for the fourth consecutive week, according to analysis of data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The next step is an FDA decision on whether to expand the current emergency use authorization (EUA) for teenagers to the younger age group.

Timing of any official word from the agency is unknown. But possibly in anticipation of today’s filing, the FDA already scheduled a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee for Oct. 25.

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

Pfizer asked the FDA on Thursday to expand emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine to children ages 5 to 11.

The request comes after the drugmaker submitted clinical trial data to the FDA on Sept. 28. Pfizer said the study of 2,268 children showed the vaccine was safe and produced a robust immune response.

Participants in the studies received a lower dose of the vaccine, 10 micrograms. Their response 2 weeks after a second dose was reportedly equal to the immune protection in a control group of 16- to 25-year-olds who received the fully approved 30-microgram doses.

Currently, the Pfizer EUA applies to 12- to 15-year-olds and people eligible for a Pfizer booster shot. The drugmaker received full FDA approval for the vaccine for Americans 16 years and older in August.

The filing for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds comes as overall cases of COVID-19 in the United States continue to decline. The decrease includes a drop in new cases in children for the fourth consecutive week, according to analysis of data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The next step is an FDA decision on whether to expand the current emergency use authorization (EUA) for teenagers to the younger age group.

Timing of any official word from the agency is unknown. But possibly in anticipation of today’s filing, the FDA already scheduled a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee for Oct. 25.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many people are confused — patients and healthcare providers alike — in the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announcements about who is authorized to get a third or ‘booster’ shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The official word on boosters from the CDC in the early morning hours of September 24 sparked a jump in people calling about or coming in for a third shot, healthcare providers report. At the same time, the uncertainty from changing federal messages about boosters is causing some chaos, especially in the form of vaccine misinformation.

The confusion started, in part, with the August 13 announcement that immunocompromised Americans were eligible for a booster shot. Next came the initial Biden administration intention to provide most U.S. adults with a third shot starting September 20 — an announcement later rolled back — followed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) limiting boosters to select groups last week.

“It was only 3% of the population that was going to be getting a third dose, then it was back to everyone being able to get the booster, and then it’s back to a select crew,” Louito Edje, MD, a family physician in private practice in Cincinnati, said in an interview with this news organization.

This kind of mixed messaging is generating more questions than answers.  

“Even though that is following the science, translating the science into policy, it’s really fraught with confusion for patients, especially,” added Dr. Edje, professor educator in the departments of medical education and family and community medicine at UC Health and a fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

When asked if he’s seeing more uncertainty about boosters, community pharmacist Brian Caswell, RPh, said: “I’m going to have to say yes because I’ve been confused myself at times.”

“Yes, there is a lot of confusion,” added Mr. Caswell, owner or co-owner of four pharmacies in Kansas and Missouri and president of the National Community Pharmacists Association. 
 

Boosting misinformation?

“Unfortunately, confusion leads to an acceleration of misinformation,” Mr. Caswell said.

Dr. Edje shared an example. “The folks who have been hesitant to even get the first vaccine appear now a little less likely to want to go ahead and get vaccinated.”

These patients point to breakthrough COVID-19 cases of the Delta variant, which “reinforces that they don’t need to get vaccinated in the first place,” Dr. Edje said.

“That’s unfortunate because it’s a complete fallacy.”

Clearer communication from the federal government could help alleviate confusion, Mr. Caswell said. “I would like to see an official CDC chart that states who is eligible as of a certain date. Something that is accessible through their webpage or a social media source that can be updated. That would help all of us.”

“For myself, I’ve got patients from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri that might be operating under different guidelines. That makes it even more confusing,” he said.

More clarity is needed for individuals seeking boosters as well. “It would help to be very clear with the general public, who are becoming very knowledgeable within this vaccine realm,” Mr. Caswell said.
 

‘Gaming the system’

Although most people seeking a booster shot at one of Caswell’s pharmacies are following official recommendations, there are some who remain ineligible but nonetheless come in for an additional vaccine.

“Even before this announcement last Friday, in the latter part of August when the CDC talked about a booster for immunocompromised, we had interest from people who did not meet the criteria,” Mr. Caswell said.

To the ineligible, he and his staff explain the approval process, why certain decisions are made, and point out that the number of eligible Americans is likely to expand in the future.

“The vast majority of them are understanding,” Mr. Caswell said. “But we’ve had some people who really didn’t want to accept the information, and I don’t know what they’ve done.”

“Some people are gaming the system to get their booster or second shot of J&J,” he said.

For example, Mr. Caswell had a patient who crossed over state lines from Missouri seeking a vaccine booster at Wolkar Drug, a pharmacy in Baxter Springs, Kan. “We found out later he had a J&J shot at a facility or provider in Missouri. He came over to Kansas, signed up for it and got a booster with Moderna.”

“We called and asked him if he was aware of it. He said, ‘yes.’ When we questioned him more about it, he hung up.”

Dr. Edje is likewise seeing interest from some ineligible patients, she said.
 

Crossing a liability line?

Mr. Caswell has asked for advice from lawyers and the State Board of Pharmacy on potential liability if a pharmacist gives a booster to a patient not eligible under the official FDA and CDC guidance.

“We ask patients direct questions about whether they’ve had the COVID vaccine, COVID, and a whole litany of questions they must answer. And we’re assuming they are going to be honest and forthright,” he said. “The pharmacist needs to make sure they make every effort to get that information from the patient.”

Normally, healthcare providers like Mr. Caswell report each COVID-19 vaccination to the state registry after administration. “We have not gone through a police action and checked the registry first,” he said.

But, if people continue to try ‘gaming the system,’ he said, he might have to start checking the state registry before giving someone a booster.

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice from the CDC about legal protections for providers.

“As outlined by CDC, any off-label use of the Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is not authorized at this time and may not be covered under the PREP Act or the PREP Act declaration. This means that clinicians providing the vaccine outside of the authorized/approved use may not have immunity from claims,” the AAFP website states.

“Per CDC, individuals who receive a third dose may not be eligible for compensation after a possible adverse event. Such use would be in violation of the CDC COVID-19 vaccination program provider agreement and therefore may not be reimbursable and may impact the ability of a provider to remain in the CDC program, in addition to other potential sanctions. Administration fees for off-label doses may not be reimbursed by payers.”
 

Despite confusion, demand is up

Even amid all the uncertainty, there appears to be a jump in enthusiasm for the booster shots.

“The requests have gone up quite a bit. We’ve seen a number of requests from people in person and over the phone looking to get a booster,” Mr. Caswell said. “Since the discussion at the federal level...there has been a lot of interest in the third shot booster, itself, as well as about a booster for J&J.”

“There is quite a bit of excitement out there,” he said.

Dr. Edje agreed: “I take care of a fair number of folks...including the elderly and healthcare professionals. They are already asking for the booster.”

Interestingly, Dr. Edje would like to get a booster herself but is not eligible for the Pfizer third shot. She is a participant in a Moderna vaccine trial and can only receive additional immunization as part of the study.
 

‘Walk, don’t run’

To quell any potential early rush to get a third shot, U.S. health officials are reminding booster-ineligible people that they still have some protection against COVID-19.

“If you’re a person who ultimately might get a booster that will make you optimally protected, you don’t necessarily need to get it tomorrow,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, also weighed in. She told ABC that boosters for people who received a Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be addressed with urgency.

“I want to reiterate that this is a very slow wane. There is no urgency here to go and get your booster immediately. You know, walk don’t run to your booster appointment,” she said.

“We will come and look at the data for Moderna and J&J in very short order.”

Dr. Edje and Mr. Caswell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If you have a gut feeling something is preventing you from losing as much weight as you would like to, you could be right.

Researchers found that the gut microbiome – the bacteria that help digest food and absorb nutrients in the intestines – can influence attempts at weight loss.

They identified genes within these bacteria that determine how quickly the bacteria grow, how well people can take advantage of nutrients in food, and whether starches and fiber, in particular, get broken down into sugars too quickly to aid weight loss.

“Some people have a harder time losing weight than others,” study author Sean Gibbons, PhD, told this news organization. “For example, some people are able to control their weight through basic lifestyle interventions, while others may not.”

Furthermore, it is difficult to predict which individuals will respond to changes in diet or exercise and who might require more intense strategies.

The study, which was published online September 14 in mSystems, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology, could bring us closer to an answer.

“We’ve identified specific genetic signatures in the gut microbiome that were predictive of weight loss response in a small cohort of patients following a healthy lifestyle intervention,” explained Dr. Gibbons, Washington Research Foundation distinguished investigator and assistant professor at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.
 

Weight loss takes guts?

Differences in 31 functional genes emerged from the gut microbiome in 48 people who lost 1% or more of their weight each month compared with 57 others whose weight remained the same. These findings came from stool samples taken 6 to 12 months after people started a commercial weight loss coaching program.

In contrast, lead author Christian Diener, PhD, also of the Institute for Systems Biology, and colleagues found only one factor in the blood that differed between the weight loss and weight maintenance groups. (They specifically evaluated proteins associated with obesity in the blood and genetic data from stool samples in a subset of 25 participants.)

Their findings align with previous research showing different types of bacteria in the gut microbiome can affect the success of weight loss interventions, but they took it a step further to determine how this works.

“We know that the gut microbiome plays an important role in weight management and can also influence a response to weight loss interventions. However, specific gut microbiome features that can explain this observation in more detail are still to be discovered,” Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, D.C., told this news organization when asked for comment.
 

Good versus bad players

On the plus side, genes that help bacteria grow more rapidly were associated with weight loss. These bacteria take more of the nutrients in food for themselves, leaving less to go toward human weight gain compared with slower growing bacteria.

In fact, prior evidence points to a particular gut bacteria, Prevotella, as being beneficial for weight loss. “In our study,” Dr. Gibbons said, “we found that some of the fastest-growing microbes in the weight-loss responder group were from the genus Prevotella.”

On the other hand, bacteria that produce more enzymes to breakdown starches or fiber quickly into sugars, for example, were linked with making people more resistant to weight loss.

“By understanding these functional patterns, we may one day be able to engineer resistant microbiomes to be more permissive to weight loss,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Kahleova agreed. “These findings expand our understanding of the specific features of the gut microbiome that play a role in weight loss,” she said.
 

Moving beyond BMI

Interestingly, the researchers controlled for baseline body mass index (BMI) and other factors that could affect weight loss. People who start off with a higher BMI tend to lose more weight than others, a phenomenon known as ‘regression to the mean.” This factor confounded some earlier research, they noted.

“The vast majority of features associated with weight loss, independent of BMI, were functional genes within the gut metagenome,” Dr. Gibbons said.

“This tells us that the gut microbiome is an important modulator of weight loss, independent of your underlying metabolic health state, baseline diet, or BMI status.”

“This study described several metagenomic functional features that were associated with weight loss after controlling for potential confounders, such as age, sex, and baseline BMI,” Dr. Kahleova said. “These findings ... may help optimize the weight-loss protocols in future studies.”
 

Fecal microbiota transplants?

What do the findings mean for people willing to adjust their diet – or undergo a fecal transplant – to include more of the gut bacteria that facilitate weight loss?

It could be too soon for such interventions, Dr. Gibbons said. “It is still very difficult to rationally engineer your gut microbiome.”

“Interestingly, a recent study suggests that fecal transplants from a high-Prevotella donor may be able to flip low-Prevotella recipients to high-Prevotella,” Dr. Gibbons said.

More research is required, however, to understand whether or not these fecal microbial transplant-flipped individuals are also more capable of weight loss, he added.

Beyond that, “I can’t give any specific recommendations, other than that [people] should eat more fiber-rich, plant-based, whole foods and reduce their consumption of red meat. That’s well-supported.”

“Also, prepare your own meals, rather than relying on sugar and sodium-rich processed foods,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Gibbons and his team hope to validate their work in larger human studies “and perhaps develop clinical diagnostics or interventions for people trying to lose weight.”

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

If you have a gut feeling something is preventing you from losing as much weight as you would like to, you could be right.

Researchers found that the gut microbiome – the bacteria that help digest food and absorb nutrients in the intestines – can influence attempts at weight loss.

They identified genes within these bacteria that determine how quickly the bacteria grow, how well people can take advantage of nutrients in food, and whether starches and fiber, in particular, get broken down into sugars too quickly to aid weight loss.

“Some people have a harder time losing weight than others,” study author Sean Gibbons, PhD, told this news organization. “For example, some people are able to control their weight through basic lifestyle interventions, while others may not.”

Furthermore, it is difficult to predict which individuals will respond to changes in diet or exercise and who might require more intense strategies.

The study, which was published online September 14 in mSystems, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology, could bring us closer to an answer.

“We’ve identified specific genetic signatures in the gut microbiome that were predictive of weight loss response in a small cohort of patients following a healthy lifestyle intervention,” explained Dr. Gibbons, Washington Research Foundation distinguished investigator and assistant professor at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.
 

Weight loss takes guts?

Differences in 31 functional genes emerged from the gut microbiome in 48 people who lost 1% or more of their weight each month compared with 57 others whose weight remained the same. These findings came from stool samples taken 6 to 12 months after people started a commercial weight loss coaching program.

In contrast, lead author Christian Diener, PhD, also of the Institute for Systems Biology, and colleagues found only one factor in the blood that differed between the weight loss and weight maintenance groups. (They specifically evaluated proteins associated with obesity in the blood and genetic data from stool samples in a subset of 25 participants.)

Their findings align with previous research showing different types of bacteria in the gut microbiome can affect the success of weight loss interventions, but they took it a step further to determine how this works.

“We know that the gut microbiome plays an important role in weight management and can also influence a response to weight loss interventions. However, specific gut microbiome features that can explain this observation in more detail are still to be discovered,” Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, D.C., told this news organization when asked for comment.
 

Good versus bad players

On the plus side, genes that help bacteria grow more rapidly were associated with weight loss. These bacteria take more of the nutrients in food for themselves, leaving less to go toward human weight gain compared with slower growing bacteria.

In fact, prior evidence points to a particular gut bacteria, Prevotella, as being beneficial for weight loss. “In our study,” Dr. Gibbons said, “we found that some of the fastest-growing microbes in the weight-loss responder group were from the genus Prevotella.”

On the other hand, bacteria that produce more enzymes to breakdown starches or fiber quickly into sugars, for example, were linked with making people more resistant to weight loss.

“By understanding these functional patterns, we may one day be able to engineer resistant microbiomes to be more permissive to weight loss,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Kahleova agreed. “These findings expand our understanding of the specific features of the gut microbiome that play a role in weight loss,” she said.
 

Moving beyond BMI

Interestingly, the researchers controlled for baseline body mass index (BMI) and other factors that could affect weight loss. People who start off with a higher BMI tend to lose more weight than others, a phenomenon known as ‘regression to the mean.” This factor confounded some earlier research, they noted.

“The vast majority of features associated with weight loss, independent of BMI, were functional genes within the gut metagenome,” Dr. Gibbons said.

“This tells us that the gut microbiome is an important modulator of weight loss, independent of your underlying metabolic health state, baseline diet, or BMI status.”

“This study described several metagenomic functional features that were associated with weight loss after controlling for potential confounders, such as age, sex, and baseline BMI,” Dr. Kahleova said. “These findings ... may help optimize the weight-loss protocols in future studies.”
 

Fecal microbiota transplants?

What do the findings mean for people willing to adjust their diet – or undergo a fecal transplant – to include more of the gut bacteria that facilitate weight loss?

It could be too soon for such interventions, Dr. Gibbons said. “It is still very difficult to rationally engineer your gut microbiome.”

“Interestingly, a recent study suggests that fecal transplants from a high-Prevotella donor may be able to flip low-Prevotella recipients to high-Prevotella,” Dr. Gibbons said.

More research is required, however, to understand whether or not these fecal microbial transplant-flipped individuals are also more capable of weight loss, he added.

Beyond that, “I can’t give any specific recommendations, other than that [people] should eat more fiber-rich, plant-based, whole foods and reduce their consumption of red meat. That’s well-supported.”

“Also, prepare your own meals, rather than relying on sugar and sodium-rich processed foods,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Gibbons and his team hope to validate their work in larger human studies “and perhaps develop clinical diagnostics or interventions for people trying to lose weight.”

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

If you have a gut feeling something is preventing you from losing as much weight as you would like to, you could be right.

Researchers found that the gut microbiome – the bacteria that help digest food and absorb nutrients in the intestines – can influence attempts at weight loss.

They identified genes within these bacteria that determine how quickly the bacteria grow, how well people can take advantage of nutrients in food, and whether starches and fiber, in particular, get broken down into sugars too quickly to aid weight loss.

“Some people have a harder time losing weight than others,” study author Sean Gibbons, PhD, told this news organization. “For example, some people are able to control their weight through basic lifestyle interventions, while others may not.”

Furthermore, it is difficult to predict which individuals will respond to changes in diet or exercise and who might require more intense strategies.

The study, which was published online September 14 in mSystems, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology, could bring us closer to an answer.

“We’ve identified specific genetic signatures in the gut microbiome that were predictive of weight loss response in a small cohort of patients following a healthy lifestyle intervention,” explained Dr. Gibbons, Washington Research Foundation distinguished investigator and assistant professor at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle.
 

Weight loss takes guts?

Differences in 31 functional genes emerged from the gut microbiome in 48 people who lost 1% or more of their weight each month compared with 57 others whose weight remained the same. These findings came from stool samples taken 6 to 12 months after people started a commercial weight loss coaching program.

In contrast, lead author Christian Diener, PhD, also of the Institute for Systems Biology, and colleagues found only one factor in the blood that differed between the weight loss and weight maintenance groups. (They specifically evaluated proteins associated with obesity in the blood and genetic data from stool samples in a subset of 25 participants.)

Their findings align with previous research showing different types of bacteria in the gut microbiome can affect the success of weight loss interventions, but they took it a step further to determine how this works.

“We know that the gut microbiome plays an important role in weight management and can also influence a response to weight loss interventions. However, specific gut microbiome features that can explain this observation in more detail are still to be discovered,” Hana Kahleova, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, D.C., told this news organization when asked for comment.
 

Good versus bad players

On the plus side, genes that help bacteria grow more rapidly were associated with weight loss. These bacteria take more of the nutrients in food for themselves, leaving less to go toward human weight gain compared with slower growing bacteria.

In fact, prior evidence points to a particular gut bacteria, Prevotella, as being beneficial for weight loss. “In our study,” Dr. Gibbons said, “we found that some of the fastest-growing microbes in the weight-loss responder group were from the genus Prevotella.”

On the other hand, bacteria that produce more enzymes to breakdown starches or fiber quickly into sugars, for example, were linked with making people more resistant to weight loss.

“By understanding these functional patterns, we may one day be able to engineer resistant microbiomes to be more permissive to weight loss,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Kahleova agreed. “These findings expand our understanding of the specific features of the gut microbiome that play a role in weight loss,” she said.
 

Moving beyond BMI

Interestingly, the researchers controlled for baseline body mass index (BMI) and other factors that could affect weight loss. People who start off with a higher BMI tend to lose more weight than others, a phenomenon known as ‘regression to the mean.” This factor confounded some earlier research, they noted.

“The vast majority of features associated with weight loss, independent of BMI, were functional genes within the gut metagenome,” Dr. Gibbons said.

“This tells us that the gut microbiome is an important modulator of weight loss, independent of your underlying metabolic health state, baseline diet, or BMI status.”

“This study described several metagenomic functional features that were associated with weight loss after controlling for potential confounders, such as age, sex, and baseline BMI,” Dr. Kahleova said. “These findings ... may help optimize the weight-loss protocols in future studies.”
 

Fecal microbiota transplants?

What do the findings mean for people willing to adjust their diet – or undergo a fecal transplant – to include more of the gut bacteria that facilitate weight loss?

It could be too soon for such interventions, Dr. Gibbons said. “It is still very difficult to rationally engineer your gut microbiome.”

“Interestingly, a recent study suggests that fecal transplants from a high-Prevotella donor may be able to flip low-Prevotella recipients to high-Prevotella,” Dr. Gibbons said.

More research is required, however, to understand whether or not these fecal microbial transplant-flipped individuals are also more capable of weight loss, he added.

Beyond that, “I can’t give any specific recommendations, other than that [people] should eat more fiber-rich, plant-based, whole foods and reduce their consumption of red meat. That’s well-supported.”

“Also, prepare your own meals, rather than relying on sugar and sodium-rich processed foods,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Dr. Gibbons and his team hope to validate their work in larger human studies “and perhaps develop clinical diagnostics or interventions for people trying to lose weight.”

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Following the White House administration’s announcement to start booster COVID-19 vaccinations for American adults in September, experts weighed in on the evidence for choosing an 8-month cutoff, how breakthrough infections figure in, and why calling one mRNA vaccine better than the other could be misleading.

Timing came up more than once at the Aug. 18 White House briefing announcing the booster plans. Reporters asked about the start time of Sept. 20 and people waiting at least 8 months after their second mRNA vaccine dose to get a booster.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained that late September gives the United States time to set up the logistics.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, added that 8 months is in part based on data from Israel and other countries on the waning of vaccine effectiveness over time.

“It is possible that 8 [months] is associated with the amount of time that we’ve been able to follow large groups of people, especially those who are 65 and older,” Julie Swann, PhD, said during a subsequent media briefing sponsored by Newswise on Aug. 18. “I know that Pfizer has said that they think a booster sometime between 6 and 12 months would be reasonable.”

Dr. Swann supported the administration’s booster shots plan. She said it is important “that we continue to get people the full amount of protection if it’s recommended by CDC and ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] that would come from a booster shot.” Dr. Swann is department head and A. Doug Allison Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
 

Rising importance of breakthrough cases

Also on Aug. 18, news emerged that breakthrough cases are on the rise in seven U.S. states, likely because of the Delta variant.

These SARS-CoV-2 infections among the fully vaccinated account for 20% of cases in six of the seven states cited in a New York Times report, for example. Researchers also suggested that hospitalization and deaths associated with breakthrough cases could be higher than previously appreciated.

“It is expected that over time we will see more cases of Delta variant infections among vaccinated people. This points toward the need for booster vaccines and/or eventual modifications to the vaccine to capture new variants in the future,” Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH, chief of the division of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, said during the briefing.
 

Vaccine comparisons unfair?

Following the release of a Mayo Clinic study reporting lower effectiveness of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine at 42% versus 76% for the Moderna product, some people started asking if one vaccine was better than the other.

“To begin with, the vaccines are not being compared side-by-side,” Dr. Wisnivesky said. “So we only know the effectiveness of each vaccine versus placebo, but we don’t know one versus the other.”

He added that different study designs, different populations, and other factors make direct comparisons difficult.

More evidence will be needed, Dr. Wisnivesky said, before public health officials can recommend that someone who received one mRNA vaccine switch to another for their booster shot.
 

Layering protections

Continuing to recommend masks is essential, Dr. Swann added. “With this Delta variant, it does appear that the possibility of reinfection or of a disease case breaking through vaccination can occur. So that makes it even more important to consider using nonpharmaceutical interventions while we continue to vaccinate people.”

Wearing or not wearing a mask is one of the behaviors that drive the transmission of disease, Dr. Swann said.

“What we saw across the board is that many people really wanted to go back to normal as much as they could. And we went back to normal a little bit too soon, especially given this new version of the virus that was circulating,” she said.
 

In poll, most favor boosters

A recent poll conducted by Medscape indicates that a majority of vaccinated physicians and nurses are ready and willing to take a COVID-19 booster vaccine. For example, 93% of 943 doctors and 87% of 1,680 nurses who responded want booster shots, either immediately or when they are authorized and recommended.

Among 510 WebMD readers responding to a similar poll, 82% indicated they wanted a booster shot.
 

A challenging task lies ahead

According to CDC data, as of Aug. 18, 2021, almost 169 million Americans are fully vaccinated, including the one-shot Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine.

“I think it will be a challenge to get everyone who is fully vaccinated to come in for that booster,” Dr. Swann said.

Logistically speaking, Dr. Swann explained that many sites that were open for initial vaccinations, including drive-up locations and 24/7 vaccination sites, are no longer operating.

“We might see that rollout look a little bit differently. You might be able to go to your pharmacy or go to your primary care physician,” she said.

“But we may not see as many weekend events so it is going to be easier to get some people a booster than others.

“One interesting thing will also be whether a booster is effective in actually preventing you from giving a disease to someone else,” Dr. Swann said. “That could make a difference as well, because that might play into whether companies, hospitals, universities, or others require a booster.”

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

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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