MDedge Neurology

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Sandy was placed in memory care recently.

In my world, as a 23-year veteran of the neurology frontline trenches, this is a pretty common occurrence for my patients.

But Sandy isn’t my patient.

She’s a longtime friend.

My parents met Sandy and her husband on New Year’s Eve, 1968. I was 2. Phoenix wasn’t a particularly big city back then.

Growing up we had summer pool parties and get-togethers with them and other families. My mom and Sandy have close birthdays, and when they both turned 50 their husbands threw them a combined 100-year surprise party. As couples they made occasional trips to Las Vegas.

In adolescence, when my voice changed, I sounded a lot like my dad, and Sandy could never tell us apart. So when I answered the phone and she thought it was him, I’d just fly with the conversation, becoming increasingly preposterous until she said: “Okay, now I know who this is. Let me talk to your mom.” Maybe she was just humoring me the whole time. But it was good for a laugh.

Ten years ago my mom mentioned Sandy had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease by another neurologist in town. For a long time her deterioration was slow.

I last saw her 8 years ago, at my dad’s services. At that time we had a nice conversation. I didn’t go into my trained “neurology mode” – I’ve never been her doctor – but enjoyed talking to her as a family friend I hadn’t seen in years. There were a few gaps in her memory, but she was still the person I’d always been fond of.

Eight years is a long time in Alzheimer’s disease, and she finally reached the point where placement was no longer an option. My mom had spoken to her the week before, but told me Sandy couldn’t really carry a conversation now.

Sandy isn’t dead, but by the same token she is. Placement in memory care is often the realization that the person we knew and loved isn’t there anymore. In a world where we can often keep people physically up and around, our ability to do the same with their minds and souls is still desperately in need of a truly effective treatment. Such treatment isn’t even on the horizon ... yet.

As a neurologist, I know this reality. I explain it to families every day.

But when it comes to someone I know outside of my profession, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The evidence in favor of endovascular therapy for selected stroke patients who present in the late time window, from 6 to 24 hours after stroke onset, has been strengthened by the results of a new meta-analysis of data from six clinical trials.

Results of the AURORA analysis showed that for every 100 patients treated with thrombectomy, 33 patients will have less disability, and 27 patients will achieve an independent level of functioning compared with patients who receive only standard medical care.

The benefit of mechanical removal of the clot for selected patients who may have salvageable brain tissue, as identified through the use of various imaging modalities, was maintained whether the patient had a “wake-up stroke” or the onset of symptoms was witnessed, regardless of the point in time within the late window. In fact, the benefit of intervention was greater for patients who presented in the latter part of the late time window.

Never too late for urgent medical care

“While the findings of this analysis do not contradict the mantra that the earlier treatment is instituted, the higher the chance of a good outcome, they highlight the fact that it is never too late to seek urgent medical care,” said lead investigator Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

“The implications of the findings from AURORA are that they could lead to a change in guidelines from endorsement of thrombectomy as level 1a recommendation in eligible patients presenting in the 6- to 16-hour time window to a 6- to 24-hour time window,” said Dr. Jovin.

“Furthermore, there are strong signals of benefit of thrombectomy in patients who are not selected based on volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or extent of tissue at risk (penumbra), such that when those imaging modalities are not available or contraindicated, selection based on noncontrast CT and clinical information only may be acceptable,” he added. “Finally, the possibility of benefit from thrombectomy performed beyond 24 hours from last seen well is real and should be explored in future studies.”

The AURORA findings were presented at the virtual International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2021.

The objective of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of the benefit of thrombectomy for patients with stroke when performed within 6-24 hours after the patient was last seen well, Dr. Jovin explained.

He said the 6-hour cutoff was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but added, “It is highly consequential, as it marks the point of demarcation between the early and late time window, and virtually all guidelines recommend different approaches, dependent on whether patients present before or after 6 hours from symptom onset.”

The 6+ hour window

Dr. Jovin pointed out that for patients who present beyond 6 hours, treatment options are more restricted, because the data on thrombectomy in this later period come mainly from two North American trials (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) that had very stringent imaging criteria for enrollment.

“We wanted to create a heterogeneous dataset with regard to geography and selection criteria by forming the AURORA collaboration,” he commented. Their study involved an individual-level pooled analysis of all patients who underwent randomization after 6 hours from the time that they were last seen well. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus thrombectomy (either with stent retrievers or aspiration) for anterior circulation proximal large-vessel occlusion stroke.

The data came from six trials: DAWN (which enrolled patients 6-24 hours from stroke onset), DEFUSE 3 (6-16 hours), ESCAPE (0-12 hours), REVASCAT (0-8 hours), RESILIENT (0-8 hours), and POSITIVE (0-12 hours). In total, 505 patients were included in the meta-analysis, 266 in the intervention group, and 239 in the control group.

“By pooling data on patients presenting after 6 hours from all these trails, we achieve greater precision for treatment effect estimation and increased the power for subgroup analysis,” Dr. Jovin noted.

Although the majority of the patients were in the DAWN and DIFFUSE 3 trials (n = 388), “there are still a good number from the other four trials (n = 117),” Dr. Jovin reported.

Most of the trials used Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal or shift analysis as their primary endpoint, which was the also the endpoint chosen for this meta-analysis.

Imaging selection criteria ranged from fully automated software-generated quantitative volumetric analysis of baseline infarct (core) or tissue at risk to CT perfusion and plain CT/CTA. The minimum ASPECTS score was 5 or 6.

There were no imbalances in baseline characteristics. The median NIH Stroke Scale score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 8. The median time to randomization was 10.5 hours.

With regard to safety, there was no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3% in the intervention group vs. 3.3% in the control group; P = .23) or in mortality at 90 days (16.5% vs. 19.3%; P = .87). Jovin noted that these results are very similar to those from the HERMES meta-analysis of patients treated in the early time window.

The primary outcome – ordinal analysis of the mRS distribution – showed an adjusted odds ratio of 2.54 (P < .0001) for benefit in the intervention group. The number needed to treat to reduce disability was 3. “This is again very similar to the HERMES meta-analysis of patients in the early window,” Dr. Jovin said.

The P value for heterogeneity of treatment effect across the six studies was nonsignificant.

Secondary outcome analysis showed an “almost 27%” difference in good functional outcome (MRS, 0-2) between the two groups (45.9% in the intervention group vs. 19.3% in the control group), which translates into a number needed to treat of 3.8, Dr. Jovin reported.

Subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect favoring intervention across all prespecified subgroup factors, including age, sex, occlusion location, mode of presentation (wake-up vs. witnessed), and ASPECTS score, with the caveat that most of the patients were enrolled with ASPECTS scores of 7 or greater.

Early versus late

Surprisingly, although thrombectomy was found to be beneficial in both the 6- to 12-hour and 12- to 24-hour time window, the magnitude of benefit was significantly higher in the later rather than the earlier time window. The odds ratio of a better outcome with thrombectomy on the mRS shift analysis in those presenting in the 6- to 12-hour period was 1.78, compared with 5.86 in the 12- to 24-hour time window.

“This should not be interpreted as a higher chance of a good outcome if treated late. In fact, the rate of good outcomes were numerically higher in the earlier treated patients, but the difference comes from the control group, which did much worse in patients randomized in the later time period,” Dr. Jovin said.

“Aurora was the goddess of dawn [in ancient Roman mythology], so this is a very fitting name, as it reminds us that we are in the dawn of a new era where patients are selected based on physiological data rather than on time, and we certainly hope that this work has brought us closer to this reality,” Dr. Jovin concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “The work provides pooled empiric data to support the concept that time to treatment is no longer the sole threshold variable to be used in treatment decision-making. Instead, time is now simply another variable to consider in the context of clinical and imaging factors.”

Dr. Hill, who headed up the ESCAPE trial and was also involved in the current meta-analysis, added: “This meta-analysis supports the concept of patient selection using the ‘good scan’ model, rather than using a time-based concept of patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. It will further push changes in care, because the implication is that all patients with more severe acute stroke presentations need emergency neurovascular imaging to decide if they are eligible for treatment.”

The AURORA meta-analysis was funded by Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Jovin reports stock holdings in Anaconda, Route 92, VizAi, FreeOx, Blockade Medical, Methinks, and Corindus; personal fees from Cerenovus and Contego Medical; travel support from Fundacio Ictus; and grant support from Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A radially adjustable stent retriever provided a high rate of substantial reperfusion and was associated with low rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death in a new study. The novel device may increase the options for endovascular therapy, researchers say.

In this study, the Tigertriever (Rapid Medical) was noninferior to a prespecified performance goal and superior to established devices, as determined from historical rates derived from trials. The device achieved first-pass successful reperfusion in approximately 6 of 10 patients and final successful reperfusion in more than 9 of 10 patients.

“The Tigertriever is a highly effective and safe device to remove thrombus in patients with large-vessel occlusion who are eligible for mechanical thrombectomy,” Rishi Gupta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Wellstar Health System Kennestone Hospital, Marietta, Ga., said during his presentation.

Results of the TIGER trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, and were published online March 19, 2021, in Stroke.

Endovascular therapy significantly improves outcomes of acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. However, current devices fail to achieve successful reperfusion in approximately 27% of patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the devices are associated with complications such as embolization to a new territory and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

The Tigertriever is a radially adjustable, fully visible stent retriever. The operator controls the device’s radial expansion and force, enabling the operator to minimize vessel tension. The Tigertriever is available in Europe.

Effective revascularization

Dr. Gupta and colleagues conducted the prospective, single-arm TIGER study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tigertriever in restoring blood flow by removing clots for patients with ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion. The investigators compared the performance of the Tigertriever with a composite performance goal criterion derived from six pivotal trials of the Solitaire and Trevo devices.

The researchers enrolled patients at 16 U.S. sites and one site in Israel. Eligible participants had acute ischemic stroke resulting from large-vessel occlusion and moderate to severe neurologic deficits within 8 hours of symptom onset.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was successful revascularization within three Tigertriever passes. The investigators defined successful revascularization as achieving a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score of 2b-3. Secondary efficacy endpoints were first-pass successful revascularization and good clinical outcome, which was defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.

The primary safety endpoint was the composite of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and all-cause mortality at 3 months.

The researchers enrolled 160 patients between May 2018 and March 2020. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 61.5% were men. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17. Approximately 66% of patients received tissue plasminogen activator, and the median time to tPA administration was 95 minutes.

Most occlusions were in the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery (57.3%) or the M2 segment of the MCA (19.7%). Approximately 21% of occlusions were in the internal carotid artery.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 84.6% of participants within three passes of the Tigertriever device. This rate surpassed the 63.4% performance goal and the 73.4% historical rate.

Successful revascularization was achieved in 57.8% of cases on first pass. After three passes, the rate was 84.6%. The rate of good clinical outcome at 90 days was 58% with the Tigertriever and 43% with the historical control.

The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours and mortality at 90 days was 18.1% with the Tigertriever and 20.4% with the historical control.

The rates of symptomatic hemorrhage and of embolization to a new territory with the Tigertriever were lower than with other devices, despite the relatively infrequent use of balloon guide catheters in the study, said Dr. Gupta.

Unmeasured confounding

“I congratulate the TIGER investigators for an interesting study that looked at a novel stentriever with adjustable radial size and force,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study. “This intuitive concept shows promise in comparison to historical controls, and I look forward to hearing more about this exciting technology.”

The major advantage of the use of a composite historical control in the study is that fewer patients are needed for a trial, said Dr. de Havenon. This design makes the trial more economical and enables it to be completed more quickly.

“The impact is that a real-world patient could receive a beneficial treatment even sooner if it was shown to be beneficial with this study design,” he added. “The disadvantage is that there is unmeasured confounding because the historical controls come from trials during different time periods and at different centers and countries, with unique demographics that may not match well with your cohort.”

Statistical methodology helps mitigate this unmeasured confounding, but it remains a concern in the quest for a high level of evidence, Dr. de Havenon added.

The data suggest that the Tigertriever is a viable alternative to other stent retrievers, but they do not support its preferential use. “If the goal is to have the Tigertriever be considered a viable treatment option for large-vessel occlusion stroke, then [the researchers] have accomplished that with this study, which provides the needed data for FDA approval of the device,” said Dr. de Havenon.

“However, these data introduce the possibility of superiority but do not definitely show that,” he concluded. “To do so, they would need a randomized trial with a comparator device or devices and, as a result, a larger sample size.”

The study was funded by Rapid Medical. Dr. Gupta was one of the principal investigators for this study and for studies sponsored by Stryker Neurovascular, Zoll, and Vesalio. He served on the clinical events committee of a trial sponsored by Penumbra and has acted as a consultant for Cerenovous. Dr de Havenon disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

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

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

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

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

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

[email protected]

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.