MDedge Dermatology

Key clinical point: Exposure-response analysis predicted 15 mg upadacitinib daily would achieve robust efficacy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a limited decrease in hemoglobin or occurrence of serious infections.

Major finding: The potential benefits of increasing upadacitinib plasma exposure beyond 15 mg daily were not consistent, with 8% and 7% higher percentage of patients predicted to achieve 50% and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response levels, respectively, with 30 mg upadacitinib compared to 15 mg at week 12 but not at week 24. At week 24, the percentage of patients with serious infection was 2% for both upadacitinib doses, and the percentage of patients with hemoglobin decrease >2 g/dL was 3% and 4% for 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two phase 3 studies, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with PsA with an inadequate response to biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared being current/former employees of AbbVie and may hold stocks/stock options.

Source: Muensterman E et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Aug 31. doi: 10.1111/cts.13146.

Key clinical point: Exposure-response analysis predicted 15 mg upadacitinib daily would achieve robust efficacy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a limited decrease in hemoglobin or occurrence of serious infections.

Major finding: The potential benefits of increasing upadacitinib plasma exposure beyond 15 mg daily were not consistent, with 8% and 7% higher percentage of patients predicted to achieve 50% and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response levels, respectively, with 30 mg upadacitinib compared to 15 mg at week 12 but not at week 24. At week 24, the percentage of patients with serious infection was 2% for both upadacitinib doses, and the percentage of patients with hemoglobin decrease >2 g/dL was 3% and 4% for 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two phase 3 studies, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with PsA with an inadequate response to biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared being current/former employees of AbbVie and may hold stocks/stock options.

Source: Muensterman E et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Aug 31. doi: 10.1111/cts.13146.

Key clinical point: Exposure-response analysis predicted 15 mg upadacitinib daily would achieve robust efficacy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a limited decrease in hemoglobin or occurrence of serious infections.

Major finding: The potential benefits of increasing upadacitinib plasma exposure beyond 15 mg daily were not consistent, with 8% and 7% higher percentage of patients predicted to achieve 50% and 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response levels, respectively, with 30 mg upadacitinib compared to 15 mg at week 12 but not at week 24. At week 24, the percentage of patients with serious infection was 2% for both upadacitinib doses, and the percentage of patients with hemoglobin decrease >2 g/dL was 3% and 4% for 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two phase 3 studies, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with PsA with an inadequate response to biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared being current/former employees of AbbVie and may hold stocks/stock options.

Source: Muensterman E et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Aug 31. doi: 10.1111/cts.13146.

Key clinical point: Golimumab was effective for both musculoskeletal and cutaneous manifestations along with good drug persistence in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and concomitant psoriasis in a long-term real-life clinical setting.

Major finding: Disease activity in PsA score (P < .0001) and psoriasis activity and severity index score (P < .01) improved significantly after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months of treatment. The retention rate of golimumab was 82.8%, 73.4%, 62.0%, and 54.4% at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. The major reasons for drug discontinuation were primary/secondary inefficacy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 105 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA and concomitant psoriasis with high disease activity and elevated prevalence of comorbidities and who started treatment with golimumab.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chimenti MS et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 19. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05874-6.

Key clinical point: Golimumab was effective for both musculoskeletal and cutaneous manifestations along with good drug persistence in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and concomitant psoriasis in a long-term real-life clinical setting.

Major finding: Disease activity in PsA score (P < .0001) and psoriasis activity and severity index score (P < .01) improved significantly after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months of treatment. The retention rate of golimumab was 82.8%, 73.4%, 62.0%, and 54.4% at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. The major reasons for drug discontinuation were primary/secondary inefficacy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 105 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA and concomitant psoriasis with high disease activity and elevated prevalence of comorbidities and who started treatment with golimumab.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chimenti MS et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 19. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05874-6.

Key clinical point: Golimumab was effective for both musculoskeletal and cutaneous manifestations along with good drug persistence in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and concomitant psoriasis in a long-term real-life clinical setting.

Major finding: Disease activity in PsA score (P < .0001) and psoriasis activity and severity index score (P < .01) improved significantly after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months of treatment. The retention rate of golimumab was 82.8%, 73.4%, 62.0%, and 54.4% at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. The major reasons for drug discontinuation were primary/secondary inefficacy.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 105 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA and concomitant psoriasis with high disease activity and elevated prevalence of comorbidities and who started treatment with golimumab.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chimenti MS et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 19. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05874-6.

Key clinical point: The chances of counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or psoriasis outpatient visits, with rates being even lower among dermatologists compared to nondermatologists.

Major finding: Overall, low rates of counseling were observed for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Moreover, counseling rates for any modifiable risk factor were lower for dermatologists compared to nondermatologists visits (0.9% vs. 22.6%; P < .001).

Study details: This study used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States to assess the frequency of education/counseling for modifiable risk factors in an estimated 41.8 million psoriasis or PsA outpatient visits.

Disclosures: Dr. Barbieri is supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and receives partial support from Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Taylor MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034.

Key clinical point: The chances of counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or psoriasis outpatient visits, with rates being even lower among dermatologists compared to nondermatologists.

Major finding: Overall, low rates of counseling were observed for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Moreover, counseling rates for any modifiable risk factor were lower for dermatologists compared to nondermatologists visits (0.9% vs. 22.6%; P < .001).

Study details: This study used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States to assess the frequency of education/counseling for modifiable risk factors in an estimated 41.8 million psoriasis or PsA outpatient visits.

Disclosures: Dr. Barbieri is supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and receives partial support from Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Taylor MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034.

Key clinical point: The chances of counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or psoriasis outpatient visits, with rates being even lower among dermatologists compared to nondermatologists.

Major finding: Overall, low rates of counseling were observed for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Moreover, counseling rates for any modifiable risk factor were lower for dermatologists compared to nondermatologists visits (0.9% vs. 22.6%; P < .001).

Study details: This study used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States to assess the frequency of education/counseling for modifiable risk factors in an estimated 41.8 million psoriasis or PsA outpatient visits.

Disclosures: Dr. Barbieri is supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and receives partial support from Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Taylor MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis with higher vs. lower affected body surface area (BSA) were at an increased risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1,000 person years. Compared with BSA < 3%, BSA > 10% (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.13) and BSA = 3%-10% (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.02-2.03) were associated with incident PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, population-based cohort study including 9,056 patients with at least 1 code for psoriasis (mild to severe) and 90,547 matched general population controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultant or co-patent holder or receiving grants, honoraria, or payments for medical education from several sources.

Source: Ogdie A et al. Rheumatology. 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis with higher vs. lower affected body surface area (BSA) were at an increased risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1,000 person years. Compared with BSA < 3%, BSA > 10% (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.13) and BSA = 3%-10% (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.02-2.03) were associated with incident PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, population-based cohort study including 9,056 patients with at least 1 code for psoriasis (mild to severe) and 90,547 matched general population controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultant or co-patent holder or receiving grants, honoraria, or payments for medical education from several sources.

Source: Ogdie A et al. Rheumatology. 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis with higher vs. lower affected body surface area (BSA) were at an increased risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1,000 person years. Compared with BSA < 3%, BSA > 10% (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.13) and BSA = 3%-10% (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.02-2.03) were associated with incident PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, population-based cohort study including 9,056 patients with at least 1 code for psoriasis (mild to severe) and 90,547 matched general population controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors declared serving as consultant or co-patent holder or receiving grants, honoraria, or payments for medical education from several sources.

Source: Ogdie A et al. Rheumatology. 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622.

Key clinical point: Treating skin manifestations with biologics significantly reduced the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: The risk of developing PsA was significantly higher in patients who did not receive treatment with biologics vs. the biological treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI 1.03-1.87).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort including 1,326 patients with psoriasis without PsA, of which 663 patients received biological treatment and 663 patients did not receive biological treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not report any external funding. Dr. Pavlovsky declared serving as investigator, advisor, consultant, and invited lecturer for various sources.

Source: Rosenthal YS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946.

Key clinical point: Treating skin manifestations with biologics significantly reduced the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: The risk of developing PsA was significantly higher in patients who did not receive treatment with biologics vs. the biological treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI 1.03-1.87).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort including 1,326 patients with psoriasis without PsA, of which 663 patients received biological treatment and 663 patients did not receive biological treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not report any external funding. Dr. Pavlovsky declared serving as investigator, advisor, consultant, and invited lecturer for various sources.

Source: Rosenthal YS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946.

Key clinical point: Treating skin manifestations with biologics significantly reduced the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: The risk of developing PsA was significantly higher in patients who did not receive treatment with biologics vs. the biological treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI 1.03-1.87).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort including 1,326 patients with psoriasis without PsA, of which 663 patients received biological treatment and 663 patients did not receive biological treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not report any external funding. Dr. Pavlovsky declared serving as investigator, advisor, consultant, and invited lecturer for various sources.

Source: Rosenthal YS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946.

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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