MDedge Neurology

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

With emergency departments straining to keep up with the latest COVID surge, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) issued a plea this week for a “collaborative effort” to solve the nursing shortage.

The organization said that it is “very concerned that nursing shortages in emergency departments can complicate patient access to care and add to incredible levels of stress already on physician-led care teams,” according to a press release.

ACEP President Gillian Schmitz, MD, told this news organization, “The situation is dire in many emergency departments around the country. Emergency physicians are seeing more patients with fewer resources and less staff.

“Emergency physicians in the hardest hit communities are scrambling to locate available experts, exhausting federal support, and doing all they can to adapt to the demands of the current surge – everyone is being stretched to their limit.”

The Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) agrees with ACEP’s call for a team approach to stemming the shortage.

ENA President Ron Kraus, MSN, RN, said in an interview, “The pandemic has only amplified several long-standing issues impacting emergency nurses, such as workplace violence, a healthy work environment, and concerns about staffing shortages and the pipeline of new nurses. That said, we can’t lose focus on what’s most important in these challenging moments – ensuring every patient receives the high quality of care.”

The responsibility falls on the “collaborative effort” of the emergency department with emergency nurses playing a pivotal role, he said. But the stress, fatigue, and burnout driving nurses away from their jobs “should not be viewed as added inconvenience to anyone during a pandemic, but as a long-term threat to our health care system.”

ACEP’s press release stated that with fewer nurses available in the emergency department, team members are clocking extra hours, caring for more patients, and stretched to take on additional clinical and nonclinical duties.

“I am hearing from colleagues from Washington state to Michigan to New York that this is the worst they have seen since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Schmitz said. “Everyone available is filling gaps as best they can, but the current path for many frontline workers is not sustainable,” she said in the release.

Meanwhile, ACEP is also tackling violence in the emergency department and has initiatives to protect the mental health of those working on the front lines, the release states.

“Emergency physicians will continue to do everything necessary to treat patients,” Dr. Schmitz said in the release, “but it will take a collaborative effort with legislators, policymakers and health system leaders to strengthen care teams, improve access and address capacity concerns with solutions that can save lives right now and in the months ahead.”

Dr. Schmitz stated that in Washington state, ICUs are at 97% to 100% capacity and less than 30 pediatric inpatient beds are available in the western part of the state.

“In Michigan and New York, several emergency departments are overflowing, and doctors are being called in to triage people in the waiting room because all of the emergency department beds are holding admissions. There are scenarios where entire hospitals are backing up into the emergency department and waiting room and we are physically running out of space and nursing staff.”

ACEP represents its 40,000 emergency physician members.

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

With emergency departments straining to keep up with the latest COVID surge, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) issued a plea this week for a “collaborative effort” to solve the nursing shortage.

The organization said that it is “very concerned that nursing shortages in emergency departments can complicate patient access to care and add to incredible levels of stress already on physician-led care teams,” according to a press release.

ACEP President Gillian Schmitz, MD, told this news organization, “The situation is dire in many emergency departments around the country. Emergency physicians are seeing more patients with fewer resources and less staff.

“Emergency physicians in the hardest hit communities are scrambling to locate available experts, exhausting federal support, and doing all they can to adapt to the demands of the current surge – everyone is being stretched to their limit.”

The Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) agrees with ACEP’s call for a team approach to stemming the shortage.

ENA President Ron Kraus, MSN, RN, said in an interview, “The pandemic has only amplified several long-standing issues impacting emergency nurses, such as workplace violence, a healthy work environment, and concerns about staffing shortages and the pipeline of new nurses. That said, we can’t lose focus on what’s most important in these challenging moments – ensuring every patient receives the high quality of care.”

The responsibility falls on the “collaborative effort” of the emergency department with emergency nurses playing a pivotal role, he said. But the stress, fatigue, and burnout driving nurses away from their jobs “should not be viewed as added inconvenience to anyone during a pandemic, but as a long-term threat to our health care system.”

ACEP’s press release stated that with fewer nurses available in the emergency department, team members are clocking extra hours, caring for more patients, and stretched to take on additional clinical and nonclinical duties.

“I am hearing from colleagues from Washington state to Michigan to New York that this is the worst they have seen since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Schmitz said. “Everyone available is filling gaps as best they can, but the current path for many frontline workers is not sustainable,” she said in the release.

Meanwhile, ACEP is also tackling violence in the emergency department and has initiatives to protect the mental health of those working on the front lines, the release states.

“Emergency physicians will continue to do everything necessary to treat patients,” Dr. Schmitz said in the release, “but it will take a collaborative effort with legislators, policymakers and health system leaders to strengthen care teams, improve access and address capacity concerns with solutions that can save lives right now and in the months ahead.”

Dr. Schmitz stated that in Washington state, ICUs are at 97% to 100% capacity and less than 30 pediatric inpatient beds are available in the western part of the state.

“In Michigan and New York, several emergency departments are overflowing, and doctors are being called in to triage people in the waiting room because all of the emergency department beds are holding admissions. There are scenarios where entire hospitals are backing up into the emergency department and waiting room and we are physically running out of space and nursing staff.”

ACEP represents its 40,000 emergency physician members.

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

With emergency departments straining to keep up with the latest COVID surge, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) issued a plea this week for a “collaborative effort” to solve the nursing shortage.

The organization said that it is “very concerned that nursing shortages in emergency departments can complicate patient access to care and add to incredible levels of stress already on physician-led care teams,” according to a press release.

ACEP President Gillian Schmitz, MD, told this news organization, “The situation is dire in many emergency departments around the country. Emergency physicians are seeing more patients with fewer resources and less staff.

“Emergency physicians in the hardest hit communities are scrambling to locate available experts, exhausting federal support, and doing all they can to adapt to the demands of the current surge – everyone is being stretched to their limit.”

The Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) agrees with ACEP’s call for a team approach to stemming the shortage.

ENA President Ron Kraus, MSN, RN, said in an interview, “The pandemic has only amplified several long-standing issues impacting emergency nurses, such as workplace violence, a healthy work environment, and concerns about staffing shortages and the pipeline of new nurses. That said, we can’t lose focus on what’s most important in these challenging moments – ensuring every patient receives the high quality of care.”

The responsibility falls on the “collaborative effort” of the emergency department with emergency nurses playing a pivotal role, he said. But the stress, fatigue, and burnout driving nurses away from their jobs “should not be viewed as added inconvenience to anyone during a pandemic, but as a long-term threat to our health care system.”

ACEP’s press release stated that with fewer nurses available in the emergency department, team members are clocking extra hours, caring for more patients, and stretched to take on additional clinical and nonclinical duties.

“I am hearing from colleagues from Washington state to Michigan to New York that this is the worst they have seen since the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Schmitz said. “Everyone available is filling gaps as best they can, but the current path for many frontline workers is not sustainable,” she said in the release.

Meanwhile, ACEP is also tackling violence in the emergency department and has initiatives to protect the mental health of those working on the front lines, the release states.

“Emergency physicians will continue to do everything necessary to treat patients,” Dr. Schmitz said in the release, “but it will take a collaborative effort with legislators, policymakers and health system leaders to strengthen care teams, improve access and address capacity concerns with solutions that can save lives right now and in the months ahead.”

Dr. Schmitz stated that in Washington state, ICUs are at 97% to 100% capacity and less than 30 pediatric inpatient beds are available in the western part of the state.

“In Michigan and New York, several emergency departments are overflowing, and doctors are being called in to triage people in the waiting room because all of the emergency department beds are holding admissions. There are scenarios where entire hospitals are backing up into the emergency department and waiting room and we are physically running out of space and nursing staff.”

ACEP represents its 40,000 emergency physician members.

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

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved efgartigimod (Vyvgart, argenx), a first-in-class, targeted therapy for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who test positive for the antiacetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody.

“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
 

Effective, well tolerated

The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.

Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.

The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.

As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.

For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.

Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.

The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Important new advance’

Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.

“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.

This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved efgartigimod (Vyvgart, argenx), a first-in-class, targeted therapy for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who test positive for the antiacetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody.

“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
 

Effective, well tolerated

The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.

Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.

The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.

As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.

For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.

Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.

The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Important new advance’

Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.

“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.

This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved efgartigimod (Vyvgart, argenx), a first-in-class, targeted therapy for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who test positive for the antiacetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody.

“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
 

Effective, well tolerated

The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.

Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.

The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.

As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.

For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.

Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.

The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Important new advance’

Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.

“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.

This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Despite a flurry of publicity about its newfound cardiac risk profile, the antiseizure medication lamotrigine (Lamictal) is “still a good drug” in epilepsy and an excellent treatment for certain groups, New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.

“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”

In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”

The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”

Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”

As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.

But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
 

Special precautions

So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.

• Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
• “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
• Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
• “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
• “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”

Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”

For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.

Dr. French reported no disclosures.

Despite a flurry of publicity about its newfound cardiac risk profile, the antiseizure medication lamotrigine (Lamictal) is “still a good drug” in epilepsy and an excellent treatment for certain groups, New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.

“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”

In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”

The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”

Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”

As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.

But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
 

Special precautions

So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.

• Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
• “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
• Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
• “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
• “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”

Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”

For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.

Dr. French reported no disclosures.

Despite a flurry of publicity about its newfound cardiac risk profile, the antiseizure medication lamotrigine (Lamictal) is “still a good drug” in epilepsy and an excellent treatment for certain groups, New York University neurologist Jacqueline A. French, MD, told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. But it’s now crucial to take special precautions in high-risk groups such as older people and heart patients.

“We need to plan more carefully when we use it, which we hate to do, as we know. But we’ve still got to do it,” said Dr. French, former president of the AES. “The risks are very small, but keep in mind that they’re not zero.”

In October 2020, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the lamotrigine label that said the drug “could slow ventricular conduction (widen QRS) and induce proarrhythmia, including sudden death, in patients with structural heart disease or myocardial ischemia.”

The FDA recommended avoiding the sodium channel blocker’s use “in patients who have cardiac conduction disorders (e.g., second- or third-degree heart block), ventricular arrhythmias, or cardiac disease or abnormality (e.g., myocardial ischemia, heart failure, structural heart disease, Brugada syndrome, or other sodium channelopathies). Concomitant use of other sodium channel blockers may increase the risk of proarrhythmia.”

Later, in March 2021, the FDA announced that a review of in vitro findings “showed a potential increased risk of heart rhythm problems.”

As Dr. French noted, lamotrigine remains widely prescribed even though there’s “no pharmaceutical company out there pushing [it].” It’s an especially beneficial drug for certain groups such as the elderly and women of child-bearing age, she said.

But older people are also at higher risk of drug-related heart complications because of the fact that many already have cardiac disease, Dr. French said. She highlighted a 2005 trial of lamotrigine that found 48% of 593 patients aged 60 years and older had cardiac disease.
 

Special precautions

So what should neurologists know about prescribing lamotrigine in light of the new warning? Dr. French recommended guidelines that she cowrote with the AES and International League Against Epilepsy.

• Prescribe as normal in patients under 60 with no cardiac risk factors. In patients older than 60, or younger with risk factors, consider an EKG before prescribing lamotrigine.
• “Nonspecific EKG abnormalities (e.g., nonspecific ST and T wave abnormalities) are not concerning, and should not preclude these individuals from being prescribed lamotrigine.”
• Beware of higher risk and consider consulting a cardiologist before starting treatment in patients with second- or third-degree heart block, Brugada syndrome, arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block, and right bundle branch block with left anterior or posterior fascicular block.
• “In most cases the initial EKG can be obtained while titrating, mainly when the individual is at the first dose of 25 mg/day because lamotrigine must be titrated slowly, and because cardiac adverse events are dose related.”
• “Clinicians should consider obtaining an EKG and/or cardiology consultation in people on lamotrigine with sudden-onset syncope or presyncope with loss of muscular tone without a clear vasovagal or orthostatic cause.”

Dr. French cautioned colleagues that they shouldn’t assume that lamotrigine stands alone among sodium channel blockers in terms of cardiac risk. As she noted, the FDA is asking manufacturers of other drugs in that class to provide data. “At some point, maybe sometime in the near future, we are going to hear in this particular in vitro sense how the other sodium channel blockers do stack up, compared with lamotrigine. At presence, in the absence of the availability of all of the rest of the data, it would be incorrect to presume that lamotrigine has more cardiac effects than other sodium channel blocking antiseizure medicines or all antiseizure medicines.”

For now, she said, although the guidelines are for lamotrigine, it’s “prudent” to follow them for all sodium channel blockers.

Dr. French reported no disclosures.

Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.

“Genetic testing is significantly impacting medical care in a population of individuals with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”

Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.

“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”

As examples, she mentioned three cases:

• Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
• A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
• Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”

In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.

As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.

Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.

“Genetic testing is significantly impacting medical care in a population of individuals with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”

Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.

“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”

As examples, she mentioned three cases:

• Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
• A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
• Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”

In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.

As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.

Physicians at a Boston hospital adjusted medical management for nearly three-quarters of patients with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy who were diagnosed with genetic epilepsy, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. The findings provide new insight into the usefulness of genetic tests in children with epilepsy of unknown cause.

“Genetic testing is significantly impacting medical care in a population of individuals with infantile- or childhood-onset epilepsy. Genetic testing should be included as part of the standard evaluation of individuals with unexplained pediatric epilepsy as a means of achieving diagnostic precision and informing clinical management,” study lead author Isabel Haviland, MD, a neurologist with Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Haviland, the causes of epilepsy are unexplained in an estimated two-thirds of pediatric epilepsy cases. “Increasingly, when genetic testing is available, previously unexplained cases of pediatric epilepsy are being found to have single-gene etiologies,” she said. “Though a genetic diagnosis in this population has implications for medical care, the direct impact on medical management in a clinical setting has not been measured. We aimed to describe the impact of genetic diagnosis on medical management in a cohort of individuals with pediatric epilepsy.”

Researchers tracked 602 patients at Boston Children’s Hospital who received next-generation gene sequencing testing from 2012 to 2019. Of those, Dr. Haviland said, 152 (25%) had a positive result that indicated genetic epilepsy (46% female, median age of onset = 6 months [2-15 months]). These patients were included in the study.

“We documented an impact on medical management in nearly three-fourths of participants (72%),” Dr. Haviland said. “A genetic diagnosis affected at least one of four categories of medical management, including care coordination (48%), treatment (45%), counseling about a change in prognosis (28%), and change in diagnosis for a few individuals who had a prior established diagnosis (1%).”

As examples, she mentioned three cases:

• Testing revealed that a subject has a disease-causing genetic variant in a gene called PRRT2. “This gene is involved in the release of neurotransmitters in the brain,” Dr. Haviland said. “Thanks to his diagnosis, he was treated with the antiseizure medication oxcarbazepine, which is often effective for epilepsy caused by variants in this gene. He had excellent response to the medication and later became seizure free.”
• A subject had a variation in the SCN1A gene that causes types of epilepsy. “At the time of his diagnosis, there was a trial for a medication called fenfluramine being offered for individuals with SCN1A variants, and his family elected to participate,” she said. “This medication was later approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] for SCN1A-related epilepsy.”
• Testing identified disease-causing variant in the GRIN2A gene in another subject. “This gene is involved in brain cell communication,” Dr. Haviland said. “This individual was treated with memantine, which acts on the specific biological pathway affected by the gene. This treatment would not have been considered without the genetic diagnosis as it is currently only approved for Alzheimer’s disease.”

In addition, Dr. Haviland said, researchers found that “there was impact on medical management both in those with earlier age of epilepsy onset (under 2 years) and those with later age of onset, as well as both in those with developmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability and developmental delay) and those with normal development.

As for the cost of genetic tests, Dr. Haviland pointed to a 2019 study that she said estimated epilepsy panel testing runs from $1,500 to $7,500, and the whole exome sequencing from $4,500 to $7,000. “Insurers sometimes cover testing, but not always,” she said. “In some cases, insurance will only cover testing if it is documented that results will directly alter medical management, which highlights the importance of our findings.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Haviland and several other authors report no disclosures. One author reports consulting fees from Takeda, Zogenix, Marinus, and FOXG1 Research Foundation. Another author reports research support from the International Foundation for CDKL5 Research.

An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“If you have COVID and you have a seizure, it’s more likely that you’re having it for the first time, and it’s not as likely that you have epilepsy,” study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”

According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.

For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.

According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).

The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).

In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).

Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”

The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”

What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“If you have COVID and you have a seizure, it’s more likely that you’re having it for the first time, and it’s not as likely that you have epilepsy,” study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”

According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.

For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.

According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).

The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).

In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).

Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”

The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”

What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

An analysis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 finds that those with no history of epilepsy had more than 3 times the odds of suffering a new-onset seizure than patients with epilepsy were to have breakthrough seizures (odds radio [OR] 3.15, P < .0001), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“If you have COVID and you have a seizure, it’s more likely that you’re having it for the first time, and it’s not as likely that you have epilepsy,” study lead author Neeraj Singh, MD, a neurologist at the New York-based Northwell Health system, said in an interview. “That’s new. We don’t normally see that when someone has a bacterial or viral infection. It’s demonstrating that this infection is having direct effect on the brain and brain signals.”

According to Dr. Singh, there’s little data about seizures in patients with COVID-19 because doctors have focused on other symptoms. A 2021 multicenter study found that electrographic seizures were detected in 9.6% of 197 patients with COVID-19 who were referred for cEEG.

For the new study, Dr. Singh and a colleague tracked 917 patients with COVID-19 in the Northwell Health system who were treated from Feb. 14 to June 14, 2020, with antiepileptic medication. Of the patients, 451 had a history of epilepsy, and 466 did not.

According to Dr. Singh, 27.6% of the patients without a history of epilepsy had new-onset seizures, while 10.1% of the patients with history of epilepsy had breakthrough seizures. The difference in odds was more than threefold after adjustment. (Among all COVID-19 patients, he said, perhaps 8%-16% had seizures).

The researchers also found that patients with new-onset seizures stayed in the hospital much longer (average, 26.9 days) than any patients with a known history of epilepsy (12.8 days, P < .0001, for those who had breakthrough seizures and 10.9 days, P < .0001, for those who didn’t).

In addition, the researchers found that having any seizures – new-onset or breakthrough – was linked to higher risk of death (OR 1.41, P = .03).

Antiseizure medications are key treatments for these patients, Dr. Singh said. As for the patients with new-onset seizures who recover from COVID-19, Dr. Singh said, “it’s suspected that these people are going to have a new diagnosis of epilepsy, not just a one-time seizure.”

The findings suggest that some patients with epilepsy are protected against COVID-19-related seizures because they take antiepileptic medications that “protect the brain from getting a trigger for an abnormal signal that leads to a seizure,” he said. “That’s one possibility.”

What can neurologists learn from the study? Dr. Singh recommends a “lower threshold” to recommend or approve EEGs in patients with COVID-19 who are confused/altered when they come in, especially if this is not normal. “They may actually be having silent seizures that no one’s noticing,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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