Infectious Disease Practitioner

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.

I am a retired advanced practice psychiatric nurse who has lived and worked on “both sides of the door.” This wording is paraphrased from psychologist and therapist Lauren Slater, PhD, who wrote about a time she went to McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, as a therapist after staying there as a patient years earlier: “And now I am standing on the other—the wrong, I mean the right side of the door and I ring the buzzer.”¹ Here I tell my story of the physical and emotional effects of my mental illness and treatment.

Onset of bipolar disorder. My bipolar illness started with a bout of depression in 1963 at age 13, which resulted in a low-key summer of often staying inside. I received no medication, and no one sent me for evaluation. In the fall, I went back to school and finished the year without incident. I continued as a quiet, shy kid through high school in the late 1960s. In my senior year, I decided to take an overload of difficult courses and run on the varsity cross-country team. The amount and intensity of these activities were too much. This resulted in my first manic episode, which started during a weekend visit to a college I hoped to attend. I became excitable, grandiose, and had delusions. A day later, I returned home, and my parents had me admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where I remained for 3 months.

At first, my diagnosis was unclear, and initially no one considered what at the time was called manic depression. At that point, I was unaware of my extensive family psychiatric history. My pharmacologic treatment consisted of chlorpromazine, trifluoperazine, and procyclidine. I returned home just before Christmas and barely finished my senior year of high school. A good college accepted me. But during the orientation, I was asked to leave because I experienced a second manic episode. After 4 more psychiatric hospitalizations, I finally stabilized.

During one of my hospitalizations, I had the good fortune to be interviewed by Dr. Thomas Detre. During this interview, I talked expansively about Don Quixote, Aldonza, and Sancho Panza. Dr. Detre diagnosed me with manic depression, and suggested that I see Dr. Christiaan van der Velde, who was researching lithium carbonate.² In 1970, I was hospitalized at Norwich State Hospital in Preston, Connecticut and was started on lithium, even though it had not yet been FDA-approved. I responded well to lithium monotherapy.

An extensive family history. Having bipolar disorder was not something I would discuss with others because I felt ashamed. I commonly hid my medication during college, especially from my roommates or other friends. By then, I had learned a little about my family’s psychiatric history, but I knew few specifics. Over time, I became aware of a dense familial cluster of affective illness going back several generations. My maternal grandmother was hospitalized for depression in 1921 after her husband suddenly died during her fourth pregnancy. She became bereft and suicidal because she had no one to support her 4 children. During my grandmother’s hospitalization, her sister and sister’s husband took care of her children. My grandmother remained hospitalized until she died in 1943. At that time, no medications were available to treat her illness. Over the next 2 generations, 2 of her 4 children and 6 of her 12 grandchildren (including me) developed bipolar disorder.

A career and family. In 1970, I started to work as a nursing assistant, then as a nursing technician for 1.5 years in a specialty hospital in New England. In 1973, I began nursing school at a junior college. I received my RN in 1975, a BS in nursing in 1979, and an MS in psychiatric nursing in 1982. I worked steadily as a psychiatric nurse in both inpatient and outpatient settings from 1975 until I retired in 2019.

In the early 1980s, I married my first wife and had 2 wonderful children. During our courtship in 1981 and 1982, I became hypomanic, which perhaps made me more outgoing and sociable. In 1985, after my father required open heart surgery, I had a manic episode that lasted 1 week. Over the next 20 years, although I was not happy with my marriage, I remained euthymic and productive at work. My marriage ended in 2012.

Continue to: By the end of 2012...

By the end of 2012, I had been taking lithium continuously for 42 years. My laboratory tests showed peak lithium levels between 0.6 and 1.2 mmol/L. I remained otherwise healthy, as demonstrated by annual physical exams and laboratory test results. In 2015, I developed an increase in my blood pressure and my primary care physician (PCP) prescribed oral lisinopril, initially 10 mg/d, and later 10 mg twice daily. My blood pressure improved and ranged from 120/74 to 130/82 mm Hg.

Hyperparathyroidism. By 2016, my psychiatrist, PCP, and nephrologist all urged me to consider parathyroid surgery.^3-5 Hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism caused the most worry. Laboratory tests indicated calcium 11.2 mg/dL, parathyroid hormone (PTH) 88 pg/mL, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 59 mL/min, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) 0.78 mIU/L. Electrocardiographysometimes showed a slight QT elongation. A right bundle branch block, which was first noted in 2015, continued. Due to my elevated calcium levels, I eliminated most calcium from my diet. My psychiatrist began to speak more strongly of parathyroid surgery. I then consulted a senior endocrinologist and a senior nephrologist, who each recommended parathyroid surgery.

I remarried in July 2016, and we moved to a different area of the country. My second wife became a stabilizing force for me. My new PCP, however, found elevated high-density lipoproteins during a routine physical examination, and started me on simvastatin, 10 mg/d. My calcium and PTH levels continued to be elevated. My PCP, nephrologist, therapist, and wife urged me to proceed with the parathyroidectomy. After a short period of watchful waiting and a second consultation with a nephrologist, I agreed to schedule a subtotal parathyroidectomy.

Surgery. In spring 2017, I began preparation for parathyroidectomy. At the time, my lithium carbonate dose was 600 mg/d, alternating with 900 mg/d. My peak level of lithium was 0.6 mmol/L. Lisinopril is synergistic, which allowed me to take a smaller effective dose of lithium.

My parathyroid surgery occurred on June 28, 2017 at Norman Parathyroid Center in Tampa, Florida.⁶ The surgeon recorded my parathyroid glands as 136, 602, and 348 units using a measure developed at Norman Parathyroid Center. No reading was given for my fourth parathyroid gland, which they did not remove. Following the surgery, I resumed my previous functions, including employment as a visiting nurse. I initially took calcium supplements after surgery, and my lithium dose was reduced to 300 mg orally, twice daily, which I have continued. I have remained euthymic. On August 3, 2017 my laboratory workup showed an eGFR of 64 mL/min, calcium 10.0 mg/dL, and PTH 17 pg/mL. Vitamin D25 OH 33, glucose, BUN/Cr, electrolytes, complete blood count, and albumin were all within normal limits. Repeat bloodwork on September 19, 2017 showed Ca⁺⁺ 10.1 mg/dL and PTH 18 pg/mL. Nine months after the surgery, I showed an incredibly positive physical and mental response, which has continued to this day.

Continue to: Clinical implications

Clinical implications. This is a single case study. However, it is important for clinicians treating patients with lithium carbonate to regularly order laboratory testing, including for lithium levels, PTH, and calcium, to detect early signs of complications from treatment, including hyperparathyroidism and hypercalcemia.⁷ These levels could be obtained every 6 months. If a patient’s PTH levels are >70 pg/mL and calcium levels are >11.0 mg/dL, it would be prudent to refer him/her for further medical evaluation. Additionally, it would be helpful to counsel the patient about considering alternative medication and adjunct mental health treatment. At some future point, it could be useful for the clinician and his/her patient to explore the idea of parathyroid surgery.

In addition to chronic lithium use, other causes of hyperparathyroidism include an adenoma on a gland, hyperplasia of ≥2 parathyroid glands, a malignant tumor, severe calcium deficiency, severe vitamin D deficiency, chronic renal failure, and (rarely) an inherited gene that causes hyperparathyroidism.

How I’m doing today. Currently, I am euthymic and in a happy marriage. My laboratory workup in May 2020 included glucose 107 mg/dL, Ca⁺⁺ 9.5 mg/dL, eGFR 61 mL/min, PTH 32 pg/mL, lithium 0.3 mmol/L (300 mg twice daily), and TSH 1.79 mIU/L. A comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, and lipid panel were all within normal limits.

I am fortunate to continue having excellent care provided by my PCP, nephrologist, urologist, and psychiatric APRN. Together with these wonderful professionals, I have been able to maintain my physical and mental health.

Acknowledgment: I gratefully acknowledge the help and skills of Robin Scharak and Gary Blake for providing some of the editing on this article.

Bill Greenberg MS, RN, APRN
Delray Beach, Florida

I am a retired advanced practice psychiatric nurse who has lived and worked on “both sides of the door.” This wording is paraphrased from psychologist and therapist Lauren Slater, PhD, who wrote about a time she went to McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, as a therapist after staying there as a patient years earlier: “And now I am standing on the other—the wrong, I mean the right side of the door and I ring the buzzer.”¹ Here I tell my story of the physical and emotional effects of my mental illness and treatment.

Onset of bipolar disorder. My bipolar illness started with a bout of depression in 1963 at age 13, which resulted in a low-key summer of often staying inside. I received no medication, and no one sent me for evaluation. In the fall, I went back to school and finished the year without incident. I continued as a quiet, shy kid through high school in the late 1960s. In my senior year, I decided to take an overload of difficult courses and run on the varsity cross-country team. The amount and intensity of these activities were too much. This resulted in my first manic episode, which started during a weekend visit to a college I hoped to attend. I became excitable, grandiose, and had delusions. A day later, I returned home, and my parents had me admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where I remained for 3 months.

At first, my diagnosis was unclear, and initially no one considered what at the time was called manic depression. At that point, I was unaware of my extensive family psychiatric history. My pharmacologic treatment consisted of chlorpromazine, trifluoperazine, and procyclidine. I returned home just before Christmas and barely finished my senior year of high school. A good college accepted me. But during the orientation, I was asked to leave because I experienced a second manic episode. After 4 more psychiatric hospitalizations, I finally stabilized.

During one of my hospitalizations, I had the good fortune to be interviewed by Dr. Thomas Detre. During this interview, I talked expansively about Don Quixote, Aldonza, and Sancho Panza. Dr. Detre diagnosed me with manic depression, and suggested that I see Dr. Christiaan van der Velde, who was researching lithium carbonate.² In 1970, I was hospitalized at Norwich State Hospital in Preston, Connecticut and was started on lithium, even though it had not yet been FDA-approved. I responded well to lithium monotherapy.

An extensive family history. Having bipolar disorder was not something I would discuss with others because I felt ashamed. I commonly hid my medication during college, especially from my roommates or other friends. By then, I had learned a little about my family’s psychiatric history, but I knew few specifics. Over time, I became aware of a dense familial cluster of affective illness going back several generations. My maternal grandmother was hospitalized for depression in 1921 after her husband suddenly died during her fourth pregnancy. She became bereft and suicidal because she had no one to support her 4 children. During my grandmother’s hospitalization, her sister and sister’s husband took care of her children. My grandmother remained hospitalized until she died in 1943. At that time, no medications were available to treat her illness. Over the next 2 generations, 2 of her 4 children and 6 of her 12 grandchildren (including me) developed bipolar disorder.

A career and family. In 1970, I started to work as a nursing assistant, then as a nursing technician for 1.5 years in a specialty hospital in New England. In 1973, I began nursing school at a junior college. I received my RN in 1975, a BS in nursing in 1979, and an MS in psychiatric nursing in 1982. I worked steadily as a psychiatric nurse in both inpatient and outpatient settings from 1975 until I retired in 2019.

In the early 1980s, I married my first wife and had 2 wonderful children. During our courtship in 1981 and 1982, I became hypomanic, which perhaps made me more outgoing and sociable. In 1985, after my father required open heart surgery, I had a manic episode that lasted 1 week. Over the next 20 years, although I was not happy with my marriage, I remained euthymic and productive at work. My marriage ended in 2012.

Continue to: By the end of 2012...

By the end of 2012, I had been taking lithium continuously for 42 years. My laboratory tests showed peak lithium levels between 0.6 and 1.2 mmol/L. I remained otherwise healthy, as demonstrated by annual physical exams and laboratory test results. In 2015, I developed an increase in my blood pressure and my primary care physician (PCP) prescribed oral lisinopril, initially 10 mg/d, and later 10 mg twice daily. My blood pressure improved and ranged from 120/74 to 130/82 mm Hg.

Hyperparathyroidism. By 2016, my psychiatrist, PCP, and nephrologist all urged me to consider parathyroid surgery.^3-5 Hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism caused the most worry. Laboratory tests indicated calcium 11.2 mg/dL, parathyroid hormone (PTH) 88 pg/mL, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 59 mL/min, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) 0.78 mIU/L. Electrocardiographysometimes showed a slight QT elongation. A right bundle branch block, which was first noted in 2015, continued. Due to my elevated calcium levels, I eliminated most calcium from my diet. My psychiatrist began to speak more strongly of parathyroid surgery. I then consulted a senior endocrinologist and a senior nephrologist, who each recommended parathyroid surgery.

I remarried in July 2016, and we moved to a different area of the country. My second wife became a stabilizing force for me. My new PCP, however, found elevated high-density lipoproteins during a routine physical examination, and started me on simvastatin, 10 mg/d. My calcium and PTH levels continued to be elevated. My PCP, nephrologist, therapist, and wife urged me to proceed with the parathyroidectomy. After a short period of watchful waiting and a second consultation with a nephrologist, I agreed to schedule a subtotal parathyroidectomy.

Surgery. In spring 2017, I began preparation for parathyroidectomy. At the time, my lithium carbonate dose was 600 mg/d, alternating with 900 mg/d. My peak level of lithium was 0.6 mmol/L. Lisinopril is synergistic, which allowed me to take a smaller effective dose of lithium.

My parathyroid surgery occurred on June 28, 2017 at Norman Parathyroid Center in Tampa, Florida.⁶ The surgeon recorded my parathyroid glands as 136, 602, and 348 units using a measure developed at Norman Parathyroid Center. No reading was given for my fourth parathyroid gland, which they did not remove. Following the surgery, I resumed my previous functions, including employment as a visiting nurse. I initially took calcium supplements after surgery, and my lithium dose was reduced to 300 mg orally, twice daily, which I have continued. I have remained euthymic. On August 3, 2017 my laboratory workup showed an eGFR of 64 mL/min, calcium 10.0 mg/dL, and PTH 17 pg/mL. Vitamin D25 OH 33, glucose, BUN/Cr, electrolytes, complete blood count, and albumin were all within normal limits. Repeat bloodwork on September 19, 2017 showed Ca⁺⁺ 10.1 mg/dL and PTH 18 pg/mL. Nine months after the surgery, I showed an incredibly positive physical and mental response, which has continued to this day.

Continue to: Clinical implications

Clinical implications. This is a single case study. However, it is important for clinicians treating patients with lithium carbonate to regularly order laboratory testing, including for lithium levels, PTH, and calcium, to detect early signs of complications from treatment, including hyperparathyroidism and hypercalcemia.⁷ These levels could be obtained every 6 months. If a patient’s PTH levels are >70 pg/mL and calcium levels are >11.0 mg/dL, it would be prudent to refer him/her for further medical evaluation. Additionally, it would be helpful to counsel the patient about considering alternative medication and adjunct mental health treatment. At some future point, it could be useful for the clinician and his/her patient to explore the idea of parathyroid surgery.

In addition to chronic lithium use, other causes of hyperparathyroidism include an adenoma on a gland, hyperplasia of ≥2 parathyroid glands, a malignant tumor, severe calcium deficiency, severe vitamin D deficiency, chronic renal failure, and (rarely) an inherited gene that causes hyperparathyroidism.

How I’m doing today. Currently, I am euthymic and in a happy marriage. My laboratory workup in May 2020 included glucose 107 mg/dL, Ca⁺⁺ 9.5 mg/dL, eGFR 61 mL/min, PTH 32 pg/mL, lithium 0.3 mmol/L (300 mg twice daily), and TSH 1.79 mIU/L. A comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, and lipid panel were all within normal limits.

I am fortunate to continue having excellent care provided by my PCP, nephrologist, urologist, and psychiatric APRN. Together with these wonderful professionals, I have been able to maintain my physical and mental health.

Acknowledgment: I gratefully acknowledge the help and skills of Robin Scharak and Gary Blake for providing some of the editing on this article.

Bill Greenberg MS, RN, APRN
Delray Beach, Florida

I am a retired advanced practice psychiatric nurse who has lived and worked on “both sides of the door.” This wording is paraphrased from psychologist and therapist Lauren Slater, PhD, who wrote about a time she went to McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, as a therapist after staying there as a patient years earlier: “And now I am standing on the other—the wrong, I mean the right side of the door and I ring the buzzer.”¹ Here I tell my story of the physical and emotional effects of my mental illness and treatment.

Onset of bipolar disorder. My bipolar illness started with a bout of depression in 1963 at age 13, which resulted in a low-key summer of often staying inside. I received no medication, and no one sent me for evaluation. In the fall, I went back to school and finished the year without incident. I continued as a quiet, shy kid through high school in the late 1960s. In my senior year, I decided to take an overload of difficult courses and run on the varsity cross-country team. The amount and intensity of these activities were too much. This resulted in my first manic episode, which started during a weekend visit to a college I hoped to attend. I became excitable, grandiose, and had delusions. A day later, I returned home, and my parents had me admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where I remained for 3 months.

At first, my diagnosis was unclear, and initially no one considered what at the time was called manic depression. At that point, I was unaware of my extensive family psychiatric history. My pharmacologic treatment consisted of chlorpromazine, trifluoperazine, and procyclidine. I returned home just before Christmas and barely finished my senior year of high school. A good college accepted me. But during the orientation, I was asked to leave because I experienced a second manic episode. After 4 more psychiatric hospitalizations, I finally stabilized.

During one of my hospitalizations, I had the good fortune to be interviewed by Dr. Thomas Detre. During this interview, I talked expansively about Don Quixote, Aldonza, and Sancho Panza. Dr. Detre diagnosed me with manic depression, and suggested that I see Dr. Christiaan van der Velde, who was researching lithium carbonate.² In 1970, I was hospitalized at Norwich State Hospital in Preston, Connecticut and was started on lithium, even though it had not yet been FDA-approved. I responded well to lithium monotherapy.

An extensive family history. Having bipolar disorder was not something I would discuss with others because I felt ashamed. I commonly hid my medication during college, especially from my roommates or other friends. By then, I had learned a little about my family’s psychiatric history, but I knew few specifics. Over time, I became aware of a dense familial cluster of affective illness going back several generations. My maternal grandmother was hospitalized for depression in 1921 after her husband suddenly died during her fourth pregnancy. She became bereft and suicidal because she had no one to support her 4 children. During my grandmother’s hospitalization, her sister and sister’s husband took care of her children. My grandmother remained hospitalized until she died in 1943. At that time, no medications were available to treat her illness. Over the next 2 generations, 2 of her 4 children and 6 of her 12 grandchildren (including me) developed bipolar disorder.

A career and family. In 1970, I started to work as a nursing assistant, then as a nursing technician for 1.5 years in a specialty hospital in New England. In 1973, I began nursing school at a junior college. I received my RN in 1975, a BS in nursing in 1979, and an MS in psychiatric nursing in 1982. I worked steadily as a psychiatric nurse in both inpatient and outpatient settings from 1975 until I retired in 2019.

In the early 1980s, I married my first wife and had 2 wonderful children. During our courtship in 1981 and 1982, I became hypomanic, which perhaps made me more outgoing and sociable. In 1985, after my father required open heart surgery, I had a manic episode that lasted 1 week. Over the next 20 years, although I was not happy with my marriage, I remained euthymic and productive at work. My marriage ended in 2012.

Continue to: By the end of 2012...

By the end of 2012, I had been taking lithium continuously for 42 years. My laboratory tests showed peak lithium levels between 0.6 and 1.2 mmol/L. I remained otherwise healthy, as demonstrated by annual physical exams and laboratory test results. In 2015, I developed an increase in my blood pressure and my primary care physician (PCP) prescribed oral lisinopril, initially 10 mg/d, and later 10 mg twice daily. My blood pressure improved and ranged from 120/74 to 130/82 mm Hg.

Hyperparathyroidism. By 2016, my psychiatrist, PCP, and nephrologist all urged me to consider parathyroid surgery.^3-5 Hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism caused the most worry. Laboratory tests indicated calcium 11.2 mg/dL, parathyroid hormone (PTH) 88 pg/mL, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 59 mL/min, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) 0.78 mIU/L. Electrocardiographysometimes showed a slight QT elongation. A right bundle branch block, which was first noted in 2015, continued. Due to my elevated calcium levels, I eliminated most calcium from my diet. My psychiatrist began to speak more strongly of parathyroid surgery. I then consulted a senior endocrinologist and a senior nephrologist, who each recommended parathyroid surgery.

I remarried in July 2016, and we moved to a different area of the country. My second wife became a stabilizing force for me. My new PCP, however, found elevated high-density lipoproteins during a routine physical examination, and started me on simvastatin, 10 mg/d. My calcium and PTH levels continued to be elevated. My PCP, nephrologist, therapist, and wife urged me to proceed with the parathyroidectomy. After a short period of watchful waiting and a second consultation with a nephrologist, I agreed to schedule a subtotal parathyroidectomy.

Surgery. In spring 2017, I began preparation for parathyroidectomy. At the time, my lithium carbonate dose was 600 mg/d, alternating with 900 mg/d. My peak level of lithium was 0.6 mmol/L. Lisinopril is synergistic, which allowed me to take a smaller effective dose of lithium.

My parathyroid surgery occurred on June 28, 2017 at Norman Parathyroid Center in Tampa, Florida.⁶ The surgeon recorded my parathyroid glands as 136, 602, and 348 units using a measure developed at Norman Parathyroid Center. No reading was given for my fourth parathyroid gland, which they did not remove. Following the surgery, I resumed my previous functions, including employment as a visiting nurse. I initially took calcium supplements after surgery, and my lithium dose was reduced to 300 mg orally, twice daily, which I have continued. I have remained euthymic. On August 3, 2017 my laboratory workup showed an eGFR of 64 mL/min, calcium 10.0 mg/dL, and PTH 17 pg/mL. Vitamin D25 OH 33, glucose, BUN/Cr, electrolytes, complete blood count, and albumin were all within normal limits. Repeat bloodwork on September 19, 2017 showed Ca⁺⁺ 10.1 mg/dL and PTH 18 pg/mL. Nine months after the surgery, I showed an incredibly positive physical and mental response, which has continued to this day.

Continue to: Clinical implications

Clinical implications. This is a single case study. However, it is important for clinicians treating patients with lithium carbonate to regularly order laboratory testing, including for lithium levels, PTH, and calcium, to detect early signs of complications from treatment, including hyperparathyroidism and hypercalcemia.⁷ These levels could be obtained every 6 months. If a patient’s PTH levels are >70 pg/mL and calcium levels are >11.0 mg/dL, it would be prudent to refer him/her for further medical evaluation. Additionally, it would be helpful to counsel the patient about considering alternative medication and adjunct mental health treatment. At some future point, it could be useful for the clinician and his/her patient to explore the idea of parathyroid surgery.

In addition to chronic lithium use, other causes of hyperparathyroidism include an adenoma on a gland, hyperplasia of ≥2 parathyroid glands, a malignant tumor, severe calcium deficiency, severe vitamin D deficiency, chronic renal failure, and (rarely) an inherited gene that causes hyperparathyroidism.

How I’m doing today. Currently, I am euthymic and in a happy marriage. My laboratory workup in May 2020 included glucose 107 mg/dL, Ca⁺⁺ 9.5 mg/dL, eGFR 61 mL/min, PTH 32 pg/mL, lithium 0.3 mmol/L (300 mg twice daily), and TSH 1.79 mIU/L. A comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, and lipid panel were all within normal limits.

I am fortunate to continue having excellent care provided by my PCP, nephrologist, urologist, and psychiatric APRN. Together with these wonderful professionals, I have been able to maintain my physical and mental health.

Acknowledgment: I gratefully acknowledge the help and skills of Robin Scharak and Gary Blake for providing some of the editing on this article.

Bill Greenberg MS, RN, APRN
Delray Beach, Florida

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.