Dermatology News

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

A novel proprietary topical combination of microencapsulated 3% benzoyl peroxide and microencapsulated 0.1% tretinoin achieved its efficacy and safety endpoints in two large pivotal phase 3 clinical acne trials, James Del Rosso, MD, reported at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

olavs/Thinkstock

Sol-Gel Technologies, the Israeli company developing the fixed-dose cream, called Twyneo, has applied to the Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval.

The product combines two workhorse topical agents for the treatment of acne, which are ordinarily incompatible, since benzoyl peroxide degrades tretinoin and reduces its effectiveness. The company’s silica-based microencapsulation technology overcomes that obstacle, explained Dr. Del Rosso, a dermatologist at JDR Research in Las Vegas.

The two identical phase 3, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trials included a total of 858 patients ages 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne enrolled at 63 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized 2:1 to once-daily application of Twyneo or its vehicle cream for 12 weeks.

In one trial, the coprimary endpoint of at least a two-grade reduction and clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on a 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale was achieved in 38.5% of patients on Twyneo and 11.5% of controls. In the other trial, the IGA success rates were 25.4% and 14.7%. In both trials, the between-group difference was statistically significant.

The other coprimary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts. Inflammatory lesions were reduced by 21.6% and 16.2% in the active treatment arms of the two trials, compared with 14.8% and 14.1% reductions in the control groups. Noninflammatory lesion counts fell by 29.7% and 24.2% in patients on active treatment, versus 19.8% and 17.4% reductions in controls. The between-group differences were statistically significant.

Skin tolerability of Twyneo was “very good” and similar to vehicle, according to Dr. Del Rosso.

He reported receiving research funding from Sol-Gel, the studies’ sponsor.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

A novel proprietary topical combination of microencapsulated 3% benzoyl peroxide and microencapsulated 0.1% tretinoin achieved its efficacy and safety endpoints in two large pivotal phase 3 clinical acne trials, James Del Rosso, MD, reported at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

olavs/Thinkstock

Sol-Gel Technologies, the Israeli company developing the fixed-dose cream, called Twyneo, has applied to the Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval.

The product combines two workhorse topical agents for the treatment of acne, which are ordinarily incompatible, since benzoyl peroxide degrades tretinoin and reduces its effectiveness. The company’s silica-based microencapsulation technology overcomes that obstacle, explained Dr. Del Rosso, a dermatologist at JDR Research in Las Vegas.

The two identical phase 3, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trials included a total of 858 patients ages 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne enrolled at 63 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized 2:1 to once-daily application of Twyneo or its vehicle cream for 12 weeks.

In one trial, the coprimary endpoint of at least a two-grade reduction and clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on a 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale was achieved in 38.5% of patients on Twyneo and 11.5% of controls. In the other trial, the IGA success rates were 25.4% and 14.7%. In both trials, the between-group difference was statistically significant.

The other coprimary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts. Inflammatory lesions were reduced by 21.6% and 16.2% in the active treatment arms of the two trials, compared with 14.8% and 14.1% reductions in the control groups. Noninflammatory lesion counts fell by 29.7% and 24.2% in patients on active treatment, versus 19.8% and 17.4% reductions in controls. The between-group differences were statistically significant.

Skin tolerability of Twyneo was “very good” and similar to vehicle, according to Dr. Del Rosso.

He reported receiving research funding from Sol-Gel, the studies’ sponsor.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

A novel proprietary topical combination of microencapsulated 3% benzoyl peroxide and microencapsulated 0.1% tretinoin achieved its efficacy and safety endpoints in two large pivotal phase 3 clinical acne trials, James Del Rosso, MD, reported at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

olavs/Thinkstock

Sol-Gel Technologies, the Israeli company developing the fixed-dose cream, called Twyneo, has applied to the Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval.

The product combines two workhorse topical agents for the treatment of acne, which are ordinarily incompatible, since benzoyl peroxide degrades tretinoin and reduces its effectiveness. The company’s silica-based microencapsulation technology overcomes that obstacle, explained Dr. Del Rosso, a dermatologist at JDR Research in Las Vegas.

The two identical phase 3, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trials included a total of 858 patients ages 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne enrolled at 63 U.S. sites. Participants were randomized 2:1 to once-daily application of Twyneo or its vehicle cream for 12 weeks.

In one trial, the coprimary endpoint of at least a two-grade reduction and clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on a 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale was achieved in 38.5% of patients on Twyneo and 11.5% of controls. In the other trial, the IGA success rates were 25.4% and 14.7%. In both trials, the between-group difference was statistically significant.

The other coprimary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts. Inflammatory lesions were reduced by 21.6% and 16.2% in the active treatment arms of the two trials, compared with 14.8% and 14.1% reductions in the control groups. Noninflammatory lesion counts fell by 29.7% and 24.2% in patients on active treatment, versus 19.8% and 17.4% reductions in controls. The between-group differences were statistically significant.

Skin tolerability of Twyneo was “very good” and similar to vehicle, according to Dr. Del Rosso.

He reported receiving research funding from Sol-Gel, the studies’ sponsor.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The dramatic advances in targeted therapies for late-stage melanoma capture the headlines, but a recent Australian study quietly concluded that the most cost-effective way to lower both the incidence of melanoma and deaths caused by the malignancy over the long haul is through primary prevention in the form of daily sunscreen use, according to Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and director of clinical trials in the department of dermatology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

“I think it’s really important that we recognize the importance of preventing skin cancer, and not just early detection, not just treatment of late disease,” Dr. Ferris said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

She highlighted the Australian cost-effectiveness analysis, which used Markov modeling of data from two published population-based, randomized controlled trials carried out in Queensland, Australia.

The cost-effectiveness study compared the estimated long-term impact of three different approaches to control of melanoma: a primary prevention strategy, which basically consisted of promoting daily sunscreen use and other forms of sun protection; early detection through annual whole-body skin examinations by physicians starting at age 50; and no intervention. The analysis provided estimates of the number of cases of melanoma, deaths caused by melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and quality of life outcomes over the course of 30 years starting in 50-year-old men and women.

Primary prevention through sun protection was the clear winner, as shown by the results:

• A 44% reduction in the incidence of melanoma, compared with early detection via annual physician skin examinations.
• A 39% reduction in projected melanoma deaths compared with early detection, which in turn achieved only a 2% reduction when compared with no intervention.
• 27% fewer keratinocyte cancers excised than with annual skin examinations.
• A 21.7% reduction in societal costs, compared with an early-detection program.

Daily sunscreen use for primary prevention was also associated with a modest 0.1% increase in quality-adjusted life-years. “Prevention is low cost, low risk, and effective,” Dr. Ferris observed.

The investigators noted that, while residents of the Australian state of Queensland are mainly fair-skinned and confront high UV radiation levels throughout the year, somewhat limiting the generalizability of the study findings, the relationships between the costs of interventional strategies and their outcomes should be proportional in other countries.

True enough, but a strategy of annual skin examinations starting at age 50 years as modeled in the Australian study is not the most productive way to conduct a melanoma early-detection program, Dr. Ferris said. She noted that data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program show that the median age at diagnosis of melanoma in the United States is 65 years, while the median age at death caused by the malignancy is 71 years. That information is helpful in formulating strategies to improve early detection through more focused, higher-yield screening.

UPMC

Case in point: European investigators have estimated that, by screening everyone age 50 years and older, 475 people need to be screened and an average of 19.6 lesions must be biopsied in order to detect one melanoma. But by reserving screening for those age 50 years and up who have any one of three risk factors – a personal history of melanoma, atypical nevi, or at least 40 common nevi – those numbers drop dramatically: 98 people need to be screened and 13.5 lesions biopsied to detect one melanoma. And by further narrowing the screened population to those age 65 years or older with any of the three risk factors, 63 seniors would need to be screened and 9.2 lesions excised to find one melanoma.

Total-body skin examinations are time-consuming for dermatologists. In a recent U.S. study, investigators determined that the additional face-to-face time required per skin cancer detected by doing a total-body skin exam in adults who present to a dermatologist for another reason is 4.5 hours. And that’s just the time involved in detecting any type of skin cancer.

“To get that number for melanoma, multiply by 15 to 20,” Dr. Ferris said.

The investigators also determined that, for each decade of advancing age and increment in lighter skin phototype, the number-needed-to-examine in order to identify one skin cancer of any type decreased.

“By focusing on patients who are older and have fair skin types we can get that time down to about 1 hour,” commented Dr. Ferris, who penned an editorial perspective on the study.

While many dermatologists recommend that people with a high common nevus count undergo frequent screening for melanoma because they are at particularly high risk for invasive disease, a couple of recent studies challenge that notion, she pointed out. One was a retrospective study of 326 consecutive new melanoma patients which found that patients with a higher nevus count had thinner melanomas and a greater likelihood of in situ melanoma. Patients who presented with invasive melanoma had a mean total nevus count of 31.5 lesions, while those with in situ melanoma averaged 57.2 nevi. Each additional nevus was associated with a 4% reduction in the likelihood of invasive melanoma, independent of age and sex.

The other study included 566 newly diagnosed melanoma patients in two U.S. centers. Among the 56% of patients who were younger than 60 years, those who had more than 50 total nevi were 68% less likely to have a thick melanoma in a logistic regression analysis that controlled for demographic factors, as well as anatomic location of the melanoma, histologic subtype, and skin cancer screening frequency. In contrast, younger patients with more than 5 atypical nevi were 2.43-fold more likely to have thicker melanomas than were those with no such lesions. The lesson, according to the investigators, is that total nevus count isn’t a reliable determinant of a patient’s risk status or the need for skin examinations.

Dr. Ferris reported no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

The dramatic advances in targeted therapies for late-stage melanoma capture the headlines, but a recent Australian study quietly concluded that the most cost-effective way to lower both the incidence of melanoma and deaths caused by the malignancy over the long haul is through primary prevention in the form of daily sunscreen use, according to Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and director of clinical trials in the department of dermatology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

“I think it’s really important that we recognize the importance of preventing skin cancer, and not just early detection, not just treatment of late disease,” Dr. Ferris said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

She highlighted the Australian cost-effectiveness analysis, which used Markov modeling of data from two published population-based, randomized controlled trials carried out in Queensland, Australia.

The cost-effectiveness study compared the estimated long-term impact of three different approaches to control of melanoma: a primary prevention strategy, which basically consisted of promoting daily sunscreen use and other forms of sun protection; early detection through annual whole-body skin examinations by physicians starting at age 50; and no intervention. The analysis provided estimates of the number of cases of melanoma, deaths caused by melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and quality of life outcomes over the course of 30 years starting in 50-year-old men and women.

Primary prevention through sun protection was the clear winner, as shown by the results:

• A 44% reduction in the incidence of melanoma, compared with early detection via annual physician skin examinations.
• A 39% reduction in projected melanoma deaths compared with early detection, which in turn achieved only a 2% reduction when compared with no intervention.
• 27% fewer keratinocyte cancers excised than with annual skin examinations.
• A 21.7% reduction in societal costs, compared with an early-detection program.

Daily sunscreen use for primary prevention was also associated with a modest 0.1% increase in quality-adjusted life-years. “Prevention is low cost, low risk, and effective,” Dr. Ferris observed.

The investigators noted that, while residents of the Australian state of Queensland are mainly fair-skinned and confront high UV radiation levels throughout the year, somewhat limiting the generalizability of the study findings, the relationships between the costs of interventional strategies and their outcomes should be proportional in other countries.

True enough, but a strategy of annual skin examinations starting at age 50 years as modeled in the Australian study is not the most productive way to conduct a melanoma early-detection program, Dr. Ferris said. She noted that data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program show that the median age at diagnosis of melanoma in the United States is 65 years, while the median age at death caused by the malignancy is 71 years. That information is helpful in formulating strategies to improve early detection through more focused, higher-yield screening.

UPMC

Case in point: European investigators have estimated that, by screening everyone age 50 years and older, 475 people need to be screened and an average of 19.6 lesions must be biopsied in order to detect one melanoma. But by reserving screening for those age 50 years and up who have any one of three risk factors – a personal history of melanoma, atypical nevi, or at least 40 common nevi – those numbers drop dramatically: 98 people need to be screened and 13.5 lesions biopsied to detect one melanoma. And by further narrowing the screened population to those age 65 years or older with any of the three risk factors, 63 seniors would need to be screened and 9.2 lesions excised to find one melanoma.

Total-body skin examinations are time-consuming for dermatologists. In a recent U.S. study, investigators determined that the additional face-to-face time required per skin cancer detected by doing a total-body skin exam in adults who present to a dermatologist for another reason is 4.5 hours. And that’s just the time involved in detecting any type of skin cancer.

“To get that number for melanoma, multiply by 15 to 20,” Dr. Ferris said.

The investigators also determined that, for each decade of advancing age and increment in lighter skin phototype, the number-needed-to-examine in order to identify one skin cancer of any type decreased.

“By focusing on patients who are older and have fair skin types we can get that time down to about 1 hour,” commented Dr. Ferris, who penned an editorial perspective on the study.

While many dermatologists recommend that people with a high common nevus count undergo frequent screening for melanoma because they are at particularly high risk for invasive disease, a couple of recent studies challenge that notion, she pointed out. One was a retrospective study of 326 consecutive new melanoma patients which found that patients with a higher nevus count had thinner melanomas and a greater likelihood of in situ melanoma. Patients who presented with invasive melanoma had a mean total nevus count of 31.5 lesions, while those with in situ melanoma averaged 57.2 nevi. Each additional nevus was associated with a 4% reduction in the likelihood of invasive melanoma, independent of age and sex.

The other study included 566 newly diagnosed melanoma patients in two U.S. centers. Among the 56% of patients who were younger than 60 years, those who had more than 50 total nevi were 68% less likely to have a thick melanoma in a logistic regression analysis that controlled for demographic factors, as well as anatomic location of the melanoma, histologic subtype, and skin cancer screening frequency. In contrast, younger patients with more than 5 atypical nevi were 2.43-fold more likely to have thicker melanomas than were those with no such lesions. The lesson, according to the investigators, is that total nevus count isn’t a reliable determinant of a patient’s risk status or the need for skin examinations.

Dr. Ferris reported no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

The dramatic advances in targeted therapies for late-stage melanoma capture the headlines, but a recent Australian study quietly concluded that the most cost-effective way to lower both the incidence of melanoma and deaths caused by the malignancy over the long haul is through primary prevention in the form of daily sunscreen use, according to Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and director of clinical trials in the department of dermatology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

“I think it’s really important that we recognize the importance of preventing skin cancer, and not just early detection, not just treatment of late disease,” Dr. Ferris said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

She highlighted the Australian cost-effectiveness analysis, which used Markov modeling of data from two published population-based, randomized controlled trials carried out in Queensland, Australia.

The cost-effectiveness study compared the estimated long-term impact of three different approaches to control of melanoma: a primary prevention strategy, which basically consisted of promoting daily sunscreen use and other forms of sun protection; early detection through annual whole-body skin examinations by physicians starting at age 50; and no intervention. The analysis provided estimates of the number of cases of melanoma, deaths caused by melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancers, and quality of life outcomes over the course of 30 years starting in 50-year-old men and women.

Primary prevention through sun protection was the clear winner, as shown by the results:

• A 44% reduction in the incidence of melanoma, compared with early detection via annual physician skin examinations.
• A 39% reduction in projected melanoma deaths compared with early detection, which in turn achieved only a 2% reduction when compared with no intervention.
• 27% fewer keratinocyte cancers excised than with annual skin examinations.
• A 21.7% reduction in societal costs, compared with an early-detection program.

Daily sunscreen use for primary prevention was also associated with a modest 0.1% increase in quality-adjusted life-years. “Prevention is low cost, low risk, and effective,” Dr. Ferris observed.

The investigators noted that, while residents of the Australian state of Queensland are mainly fair-skinned and confront high UV radiation levels throughout the year, somewhat limiting the generalizability of the study findings, the relationships between the costs of interventional strategies and their outcomes should be proportional in other countries.

True enough, but a strategy of annual skin examinations starting at age 50 years as modeled in the Australian study is not the most productive way to conduct a melanoma early-detection program, Dr. Ferris said. She noted that data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program show that the median age at diagnosis of melanoma in the United States is 65 years, while the median age at death caused by the malignancy is 71 years. That information is helpful in formulating strategies to improve early detection through more focused, higher-yield screening.

UPMC

Case in point: European investigators have estimated that, by screening everyone age 50 years and older, 475 people need to be screened and an average of 19.6 lesions must be biopsied in order to detect one melanoma. But by reserving screening for those age 50 years and up who have any one of three risk factors – a personal history of melanoma, atypical nevi, or at least 40 common nevi – those numbers drop dramatically: 98 people need to be screened and 13.5 lesions biopsied to detect one melanoma. And by further narrowing the screened population to those age 65 years or older with any of the three risk factors, 63 seniors would need to be screened and 9.2 lesions excised to find one melanoma.

Total-body skin examinations are time-consuming for dermatologists. In a recent U.S. study, investigators determined that the additional face-to-face time required per skin cancer detected by doing a total-body skin exam in adults who present to a dermatologist for another reason is 4.5 hours. And that’s just the time involved in detecting any type of skin cancer.

“To get that number for melanoma, multiply by 15 to 20,” Dr. Ferris said.

The investigators also determined that, for each decade of advancing age and increment in lighter skin phototype, the number-needed-to-examine in order to identify one skin cancer of any type decreased.

“By focusing on patients who are older and have fair skin types we can get that time down to about 1 hour,” commented Dr. Ferris, who penned an editorial perspective on the study.

While many dermatologists recommend that people with a high common nevus count undergo frequent screening for melanoma because they are at particularly high risk for invasive disease, a couple of recent studies challenge that notion, she pointed out. One was a retrospective study of 326 consecutive new melanoma patients which found that patients with a higher nevus count had thinner melanomas and a greater likelihood of in situ melanoma. Patients who presented with invasive melanoma had a mean total nevus count of 31.5 lesions, while those with in situ melanoma averaged 57.2 nevi. Each additional nevus was associated with a 4% reduction in the likelihood of invasive melanoma, independent of age and sex.

The other study included 566 newly diagnosed melanoma patients in two U.S. centers. Among the 56% of patients who were younger than 60 years, those who had more than 50 total nevi were 68% less likely to have a thick melanoma in a logistic regression analysis that controlled for demographic factors, as well as anatomic location of the melanoma, histologic subtype, and skin cancer screening frequency. In contrast, younger patients with more than 5 atypical nevi were 2.43-fold more likely to have thicker melanomas than were those with no such lesions. The lesson, according to the investigators, is that total nevus count isn’t a reliable determinant of a patient’s risk status or the need for skin examinations.

Dr. Ferris reported no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.