Ob.Gyn. News

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from people who are pregnant or lactating and want to be vaccinated, despite a lack of safety data in these populations, according to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Thye Aun Ngo/Fotolia.com

Pregnant women who opt not to receive the vaccine should be supported in that decision as well, a practice advisory from ACOG recommends.

“Pregnant women who experience fever following vaccination should be counseled to take acetaminophen,” the advisory notes.

In addition, women do not need to avoid pregnancy after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC’s interim clinical considerations for its use. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for the vaccine on Dec. 11.

Although investigators excluded pregnant women from clinical trials, experts believe that mRNA vaccines, which are not live vaccines, “are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant” and “are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant,” the CDC notes.

Meanwhile, women who are pregnant may be at greater risk of severe COVID-19, even though the absolute risk of severe illness is low. COVID-19 also may increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, although the data have been mixed with some studies finding an association and others not.

“If pregnant people are part of a group that is recommended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., health care personnel), they may choose to be vaccinated,” the CDC advises. “A conversation between the patient and their clinical team may assist with decisions regarding the use of vaccines approved under EUA for the prevention of COVID-19. While a conversation with a health care provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.”
 

Acknowledging side effects and uncertainty

ACOG’s advisory reiterates that approach. The group notes that, based on the mRNA vaccine’s mechanism of action and its safety and efficacy in clinical trials, “it is expected that the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine for pregnant individuals would be similar to that observed in nonpregnant individuals ... That said, there are no safety data specific to mRNA vaccine use in pregnant or lactating individuals and the potential risks to a pregnant individual and the fetus are unknown.” 

In clinical trials, most participants experienced mild influenza-like symptoms following vaccination, including injection site reactions, fatigue, chills, muscle and joint pain, and headache. Among participants aged 18-55 years, fever greater than 38°C occurred in 3.7% of participants after the first dose and in 15.8% after the second dose. Most symptoms resolved within a few days. 

Women who are pregnant should treat fever with acetaminophen because “fever has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes,” according to the ACOG guidance. “Acetaminophen has been proven to be safe for use in pregnancy and does not appear to impact antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines.” Patients may treat other vaccine side effects, such as injection-site soreness with acetaminophen as well.

When counseling patients, clinicians should explain that side effects are a normal part of developing antibodies to protect against COVID-19. “Regardless of their decision,” the group says, “these conversations provide an opportunity to remind patients about the importance of other prevention measures such as hand washing, physical distancing, and wearing a mask.”
 

More data expected

Data from developmental and reproductive toxicity studies in animals are expected soon, the CDC said. In addition, the manufacturer is following clinical trial participants who became pregnant during the study. 

Women who are pregnant and their physicians should weigh factors such as the extent of COVID-19 transmission in the community, the patient’s risk of contracting COVID-19, risks of COVID-19 to the patient and fetus, vaccine efficacy and side effects, and the lack of data about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends that pregnant and lactating women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in general and has advocated for the inclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating in vaccine trials. The society has suggested that health care professionals “counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.” It published resources this week for physicians and patients focused on COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy.

In a review published online Dec. 10 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, Amanda M. Craig, MD, of Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., and coauthors note that there “is a theoretical risk for fetal harm from any untested medical intervention and this is no different for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Pregnant individuals should be given the opportunity, along with their obstetric provider, to weigh the potential risk of severe maternal disease against the unknown risk of fetal exposure, and make an autonomous decision about whether or not to accept vaccine until pregnancy safety data are available,” they write.

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

COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from people who are pregnant or lactating and want to be vaccinated, despite a lack of safety data in these populations, according to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Thye Aun Ngo/Fotolia.com

Pregnant women who opt not to receive the vaccine should be supported in that decision as well, a practice advisory from ACOG recommends.

“Pregnant women who experience fever following vaccination should be counseled to take acetaminophen,” the advisory notes.

In addition, women do not need to avoid pregnancy after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC’s interim clinical considerations for its use. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for the vaccine on Dec. 11.

Although investigators excluded pregnant women from clinical trials, experts believe that mRNA vaccines, which are not live vaccines, “are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant” and “are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant,” the CDC notes.

Meanwhile, women who are pregnant may be at greater risk of severe COVID-19, even though the absolute risk of severe illness is low. COVID-19 also may increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, although the data have been mixed with some studies finding an association and others not.

“If pregnant people are part of a group that is recommended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., health care personnel), they may choose to be vaccinated,” the CDC advises. “A conversation between the patient and their clinical team may assist with decisions regarding the use of vaccines approved under EUA for the prevention of COVID-19. While a conversation with a health care provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.”
 

Acknowledging side effects and uncertainty

ACOG’s advisory reiterates that approach. The group notes that, based on the mRNA vaccine’s mechanism of action and its safety and efficacy in clinical trials, “it is expected that the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine for pregnant individuals would be similar to that observed in nonpregnant individuals ... That said, there are no safety data specific to mRNA vaccine use in pregnant or lactating individuals and the potential risks to a pregnant individual and the fetus are unknown.” 

In clinical trials, most participants experienced mild influenza-like symptoms following vaccination, including injection site reactions, fatigue, chills, muscle and joint pain, and headache. Among participants aged 18-55 years, fever greater than 38°C occurred in 3.7% of participants after the first dose and in 15.8% after the second dose. Most symptoms resolved within a few days. 

Women who are pregnant should treat fever with acetaminophen because “fever has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes,” according to the ACOG guidance. “Acetaminophen has been proven to be safe for use in pregnancy and does not appear to impact antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines.” Patients may treat other vaccine side effects, such as injection-site soreness with acetaminophen as well.

When counseling patients, clinicians should explain that side effects are a normal part of developing antibodies to protect against COVID-19. “Regardless of their decision,” the group says, “these conversations provide an opportunity to remind patients about the importance of other prevention measures such as hand washing, physical distancing, and wearing a mask.”
 

More data expected

Data from developmental and reproductive toxicity studies in animals are expected soon, the CDC said. In addition, the manufacturer is following clinical trial participants who became pregnant during the study. 

Women who are pregnant and their physicians should weigh factors such as the extent of COVID-19 transmission in the community, the patient’s risk of contracting COVID-19, risks of COVID-19 to the patient and fetus, vaccine efficacy and side effects, and the lack of data about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends that pregnant and lactating women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in general and has advocated for the inclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating in vaccine trials. The society has suggested that health care professionals “counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.” It published resources this week for physicians and patients focused on COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy.

In a review published online Dec. 10 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, Amanda M. Craig, MD, of Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., and coauthors note that there “is a theoretical risk for fetal harm from any untested medical intervention and this is no different for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Pregnant individuals should be given the opportunity, along with their obstetric provider, to weigh the potential risk of severe maternal disease against the unknown risk of fetal exposure, and make an autonomous decision about whether or not to accept vaccine until pregnancy safety data are available,” they write.

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

COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from people who are pregnant or lactating and want to be vaccinated, despite a lack of safety data in these populations, according to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Thye Aun Ngo/Fotolia.com

Pregnant women who opt not to receive the vaccine should be supported in that decision as well, a practice advisory from ACOG recommends.

“Pregnant women who experience fever following vaccination should be counseled to take acetaminophen,” the advisory notes.

In addition, women do not need to avoid pregnancy after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC’s interim clinical considerations for its use. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for the vaccine on Dec. 11.

Although investigators excluded pregnant women from clinical trials, experts believe that mRNA vaccines, which are not live vaccines, “are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant” and “are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant,” the CDC notes.

Meanwhile, women who are pregnant may be at greater risk of severe COVID-19, even though the absolute risk of severe illness is low. COVID-19 also may increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, although the data have been mixed with some studies finding an association and others not.

“If pregnant people are part of a group that is recommended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (e.g., health care personnel), they may choose to be vaccinated,” the CDC advises. “A conversation between the patient and their clinical team may assist with decisions regarding the use of vaccines approved under EUA for the prevention of COVID-19. While a conversation with a health care provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.”
 

Acknowledging side effects and uncertainty

ACOG’s advisory reiterates that approach. The group notes that, based on the mRNA vaccine’s mechanism of action and its safety and efficacy in clinical trials, “it is expected that the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine for pregnant individuals would be similar to that observed in nonpregnant individuals ... That said, there are no safety data specific to mRNA vaccine use in pregnant or lactating individuals and the potential risks to a pregnant individual and the fetus are unknown.” 

In clinical trials, most participants experienced mild influenza-like symptoms following vaccination, including injection site reactions, fatigue, chills, muscle and joint pain, and headache. Among participants aged 18-55 years, fever greater than 38°C occurred in 3.7% of participants after the first dose and in 15.8% after the second dose. Most symptoms resolved within a few days. 

Women who are pregnant should treat fever with acetaminophen because “fever has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes,” according to the ACOG guidance. “Acetaminophen has been proven to be safe for use in pregnancy and does not appear to impact antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines.” Patients may treat other vaccine side effects, such as injection-site soreness with acetaminophen as well.

When counseling patients, clinicians should explain that side effects are a normal part of developing antibodies to protect against COVID-19. “Regardless of their decision,” the group says, “these conversations provide an opportunity to remind patients about the importance of other prevention measures such as hand washing, physical distancing, and wearing a mask.”
 

More data expected

Data from developmental and reproductive toxicity studies in animals are expected soon, the CDC said. In addition, the manufacturer is following clinical trial participants who became pregnant during the study. 

Women who are pregnant and their physicians should weigh factors such as the extent of COVID-19 transmission in the community, the patient’s risk of contracting COVID-19, risks of COVID-19 to the patient and fetus, vaccine efficacy and side effects, and the lack of data about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends that pregnant and lactating women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in general and has advocated for the inclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating in vaccine trials. The society has suggested that health care professionals “counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.” It published resources this week for physicians and patients focused on COVID-19 vaccination and pregnancy.

In a review published online Dec. 10 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, Amanda M. Craig, MD, of Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., and coauthors note that there “is a theoretical risk for fetal harm from any untested medical intervention and this is no different for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Pregnant individuals should be given the opportunity, along with their obstetric provider, to weigh the potential risk of severe maternal disease against the unknown risk of fetal exposure, and make an autonomous decision about whether or not to accept vaccine until pregnancy safety data are available,” they write.

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

What is more stressful in the mind of a patient – a diagnosis of cancer or infertility? An infertile woman’s anxiety and depression scores are equivalent to one with cancer (J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 1993;14 Suppl:45-52). These two diseases intersect in the burgeoning field of oncofertility, the collaboration of oncology with reproductive endocrinology to offer patients the option of fertility preservation. The term oncofertility was first coined by Teresa Woodruff, PhD, in 2005 during her invited lecture at the University of Calgary symposium called “Pushing the Boundaries – Advances that Will Change the World in 20 Years.” Her prediction has reached its fruition. This article will review fertility preservation options for female oncology patients.

The ability for oncofertility to exist is the result of improved cancer survival rates and advances in reproductive medicine. Improvements in the treatment of cancer enable many young women to survive and focus on the potential of having a family. Malignancies striking young people, particularly breast, lymphoma, and melanoma, have encouraging 5-year survival rates. If invasive cancer is located only in the breast (affecting 62% of women diagnosed), the 5-year survival rate is 99%. For all with Hodgkin lymphoma, the 5-year survival is 87%, increasing to 92% if the cancer is found in its earliest stages. Among all people with melanoma of the skin, from the time of initial diagnosis, the 5-year survival is 92%.

Long-term survival is expected for 80% of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer (Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116: 1171-83).
 

Iatrogenic effects

The reproductive risk of cancer treatment is gonadotoxicity and the subsequent iatrogenic primary ovarian insufficiency (POI, prior termed premature ovarian failure) or infertility.

Chemotherapy with alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide, is associated with the greatest chance of amenorrhea (Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:113-28). Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5 fluorouracil (CMF – commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer) will usually result in loss of ovarian function in 33% of women under age 30, 50% of women aged 30-35, 75% of women aged 35-40, and 95% of women over age 40 (J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5769-79).

The dose at which 50% of oocytes are lost due to radiation is under 2 Gy (Hum Reprod. 2003;18:117-21). Unfortunately, the minimum dose decreases with advancing age of the woman, contributed by natural diminishing reserve and an increase in radiosensitivity of oocytes. Age, proximity of the radiation field to the ovaries, and total dose are important factors determining risk of POI. For brain tumors, cranial irradiation may result in hypothalamic amenorrhea.
 

Protection

The use of GnRH agonist for 6 months during chemotherapy has been controversial with mixed results in avoiding ovarian failure. A recent study suggests a GnRH agonist does reduce the prevalence of POI (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1981-90) in women treated for breast cancer but the subsequent ovarian reserve is low (Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1811-6). There are not enough data now to consider this the sole viable option for all patients to preserve fertility.

Patients requiring local pelvic radiation treatment may benefit from transposition of the ovaries to sites away from maximal radiation exposure.
 

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)

Since 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine lifted the experimental designation on OC and, last year, the society removed the same label for OTC, providing an additional fertility preservation option.

Ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval for OC can now occur literally within 2 weeks because of a random start protocol whereby women are stimulated any day in their cycle, pre- and post ovulation. Studies have shown equivalent yield of oocytes.

OC followed by thawing for subsequent fertilization and embryo transfer is employed as a routine matter with egg donation cycles. While there remains debate over whether live birth rates using frozen eggs are inferior to fresh eggs, a learning curve with the new technology may be the important factor (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:709-16).

When urgent cancer treatment precludes ovarian stimulation for OC, then OTC is a viable option. Another population that could benefit from OTC are prepubertal girls facing gonadotoxic therapy. More research is required to determine the quality of eggs obtained through ovarian stimulation in adolescent and young adult patients. While leukemic patients are eligible for OTC, there is concern about reseeding malignant cells with future autologous transplantation of tissue.

OTC involves obtaining ovarian cortical tissue, dissecting the tissue into small fragments, and cryopreserving it using either a slow-cool technique or vitrification. Orthotopic transplantation has been the most successful method for using ovarian tissue in humans. To date, live birth rates are modest (Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1097-8).

Recent research has combined the freezing of both mature and immature eggs, the latter undergoing IVM (in-vitro maturation) to maximize the potential for fertilizable eggs. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome and certain cancers or medical conditions that warrant avoiding supraphysiologic levels of estradiol from ovarian stimulation, may benefit from the retrieval of immature eggs from unstimulated ovaries.

Pregnancy outcomes using embryos created from ovaries recently exposed to chemotherapy in humans are not known but animal studies suggest there may be higher rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
 

Breast cancer – a special scenario

With every breast cancer patient, I review the theoretical concern over increasing estradiol levels during an IVF stimulation cycle with the potential impact on her cancer prognosis. Fortunately, the literature has not demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer or recurrence after undergoing an IVF cycle. Currently, the use of aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins along with a GnRH-antagonist is the protocol to maintain a lower estradiol level during stimulation, which may be of benefit for breast cancer prognosis. The use of aromatase inhibitors is an off-label indication for fertility with no definitive evidence of teratogenicity. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos is available and approved by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for BRCA gene mutation patients.

Oncofertility is an exciting field to allow cancer survivors the option for a biological child. We recommend all our cancer patients meet with our reproductive psychologist to assist in coping with the overwhelming information presented in a short time frame.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

What is more stressful in the mind of a patient – a diagnosis of cancer or infertility? An infertile woman’s anxiety and depression scores are equivalent to one with cancer (J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 1993;14 Suppl:45-52). These two diseases intersect in the burgeoning field of oncofertility, the collaboration of oncology with reproductive endocrinology to offer patients the option of fertility preservation. The term oncofertility was first coined by Teresa Woodruff, PhD, in 2005 during her invited lecture at the University of Calgary symposium called “Pushing the Boundaries – Advances that Will Change the World in 20 Years.” Her prediction has reached its fruition. This article will review fertility preservation options for female oncology patients.

The ability for oncofertility to exist is the result of improved cancer survival rates and advances in reproductive medicine. Improvements in the treatment of cancer enable many young women to survive and focus on the potential of having a family. Malignancies striking young people, particularly breast, lymphoma, and melanoma, have encouraging 5-year survival rates. If invasive cancer is located only in the breast (affecting 62% of women diagnosed), the 5-year survival rate is 99%. For all with Hodgkin lymphoma, the 5-year survival is 87%, increasing to 92% if the cancer is found in its earliest stages. Among all people with melanoma of the skin, from the time of initial diagnosis, the 5-year survival is 92%.

Long-term survival is expected for 80% of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer (Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116: 1171-83).
 

Iatrogenic effects

The reproductive risk of cancer treatment is gonadotoxicity and the subsequent iatrogenic primary ovarian insufficiency (POI, prior termed premature ovarian failure) or infertility.

Chemotherapy with alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide, is associated with the greatest chance of amenorrhea (Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:113-28). Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5 fluorouracil (CMF – commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer) will usually result in loss of ovarian function in 33% of women under age 30, 50% of women aged 30-35, 75% of women aged 35-40, and 95% of women over age 40 (J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5769-79).

The dose at which 50% of oocytes are lost due to radiation is under 2 Gy (Hum Reprod. 2003;18:117-21). Unfortunately, the minimum dose decreases with advancing age of the woman, contributed by natural diminishing reserve and an increase in radiosensitivity of oocytes. Age, proximity of the radiation field to the ovaries, and total dose are important factors determining risk of POI. For brain tumors, cranial irradiation may result in hypothalamic amenorrhea.
 

Protection

The use of GnRH agonist for 6 months during chemotherapy has been controversial with mixed results in avoiding ovarian failure. A recent study suggests a GnRH agonist does reduce the prevalence of POI (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1981-90) in women treated for breast cancer but the subsequent ovarian reserve is low (Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1811-6). There are not enough data now to consider this the sole viable option for all patients to preserve fertility.

Patients requiring local pelvic radiation treatment may benefit from transposition of the ovaries to sites away from maximal radiation exposure.
 

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)

Since 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine lifted the experimental designation on OC and, last year, the society removed the same label for OTC, providing an additional fertility preservation option.

Ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval for OC can now occur literally within 2 weeks because of a random start protocol whereby women are stimulated any day in their cycle, pre- and post ovulation. Studies have shown equivalent yield of oocytes.

OC followed by thawing for subsequent fertilization and embryo transfer is employed as a routine matter with egg donation cycles. While there remains debate over whether live birth rates using frozen eggs are inferior to fresh eggs, a learning curve with the new technology may be the important factor (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:709-16).

When urgent cancer treatment precludes ovarian stimulation for OC, then OTC is a viable option. Another population that could benefit from OTC are prepubertal girls facing gonadotoxic therapy. More research is required to determine the quality of eggs obtained through ovarian stimulation in adolescent and young adult patients. While leukemic patients are eligible for OTC, there is concern about reseeding malignant cells with future autologous transplantation of tissue.

OTC involves obtaining ovarian cortical tissue, dissecting the tissue into small fragments, and cryopreserving it using either a slow-cool technique or vitrification. Orthotopic transplantation has been the most successful method for using ovarian tissue in humans. To date, live birth rates are modest (Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1097-8).

Recent research has combined the freezing of both mature and immature eggs, the latter undergoing IVM (in-vitro maturation) to maximize the potential for fertilizable eggs. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome and certain cancers or medical conditions that warrant avoiding supraphysiologic levels of estradiol from ovarian stimulation, may benefit from the retrieval of immature eggs from unstimulated ovaries.

Pregnancy outcomes using embryos created from ovaries recently exposed to chemotherapy in humans are not known but animal studies suggest there may be higher rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
 

Breast cancer – a special scenario

With every breast cancer patient, I review the theoretical concern over increasing estradiol levels during an IVF stimulation cycle with the potential impact on her cancer prognosis. Fortunately, the literature has not demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer or recurrence after undergoing an IVF cycle. Currently, the use of aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins along with a GnRH-antagonist is the protocol to maintain a lower estradiol level during stimulation, which may be of benefit for breast cancer prognosis. The use of aromatase inhibitors is an off-label indication for fertility with no definitive evidence of teratogenicity. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos is available and approved by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for BRCA gene mutation patients.

Oncofertility is an exciting field to allow cancer survivors the option for a biological child. We recommend all our cancer patients meet with our reproductive psychologist to assist in coping with the overwhelming information presented in a short time frame.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

What is more stressful in the mind of a patient – a diagnosis of cancer or infertility? An infertile woman’s anxiety and depression scores are equivalent to one with cancer (J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 1993;14 Suppl:45-52). These two diseases intersect in the burgeoning field of oncofertility, the collaboration of oncology with reproductive endocrinology to offer patients the option of fertility preservation. The term oncofertility was first coined by Teresa Woodruff, PhD, in 2005 during her invited lecture at the University of Calgary symposium called “Pushing the Boundaries – Advances that Will Change the World in 20 Years.” Her prediction has reached its fruition. This article will review fertility preservation options for female oncology patients.

The ability for oncofertility to exist is the result of improved cancer survival rates and advances in reproductive medicine. Improvements in the treatment of cancer enable many young women to survive and focus on the potential of having a family. Malignancies striking young people, particularly breast, lymphoma, and melanoma, have encouraging 5-year survival rates. If invasive cancer is located only in the breast (affecting 62% of women diagnosed), the 5-year survival rate is 99%. For all with Hodgkin lymphoma, the 5-year survival is 87%, increasing to 92% if the cancer is found in its earliest stages. Among all people with melanoma of the skin, from the time of initial diagnosis, the 5-year survival is 92%.

Long-term survival is expected for 80% of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer (Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116: 1171-83).
 

Iatrogenic effects

The reproductive risk of cancer treatment is gonadotoxicity and the subsequent iatrogenic primary ovarian insufficiency (POI, prior termed premature ovarian failure) or infertility.

Chemotherapy with alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide, is associated with the greatest chance of amenorrhea (Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:113-28). Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5 fluorouracil (CMF – commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer) will usually result in loss of ovarian function in 33% of women under age 30, 50% of women aged 30-35, 75% of women aged 35-40, and 95% of women over age 40 (J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5769-79).

The dose at which 50% of oocytes are lost due to radiation is under 2 Gy (Hum Reprod. 2003;18:117-21). Unfortunately, the minimum dose decreases with advancing age of the woman, contributed by natural diminishing reserve and an increase in radiosensitivity of oocytes. Age, proximity of the radiation field to the ovaries, and total dose are important factors determining risk of POI. For brain tumors, cranial irradiation may result in hypothalamic amenorrhea.
 

Protection

The use of GnRH agonist for 6 months during chemotherapy has been controversial with mixed results in avoiding ovarian failure. A recent study suggests a GnRH agonist does reduce the prevalence of POI (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1981-90) in women treated for breast cancer but the subsequent ovarian reserve is low (Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1811-6). There are not enough data now to consider this the sole viable option for all patients to preserve fertility.

Patients requiring local pelvic radiation treatment may benefit from transposition of the ovaries to sites away from maximal radiation exposure.
 

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)

Since 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine lifted the experimental designation on OC and, last year, the society removed the same label for OTC, providing an additional fertility preservation option.

Ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval for OC can now occur literally within 2 weeks because of a random start protocol whereby women are stimulated any day in their cycle, pre- and post ovulation. Studies have shown equivalent yield of oocytes.

OC followed by thawing for subsequent fertilization and embryo transfer is employed as a routine matter with egg donation cycles. While there remains debate over whether live birth rates using frozen eggs are inferior to fresh eggs, a learning curve with the new technology may be the important factor (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:709-16).

When urgent cancer treatment precludes ovarian stimulation for OC, then OTC is a viable option. Another population that could benefit from OTC are prepubertal girls facing gonadotoxic therapy. More research is required to determine the quality of eggs obtained through ovarian stimulation in adolescent and young adult patients. While leukemic patients are eligible for OTC, there is concern about reseeding malignant cells with future autologous transplantation of tissue.

OTC involves obtaining ovarian cortical tissue, dissecting the tissue into small fragments, and cryopreserving it using either a slow-cool technique or vitrification. Orthotopic transplantation has been the most successful method for using ovarian tissue in humans. To date, live birth rates are modest (Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1097-8).

Recent research has combined the freezing of both mature and immature eggs, the latter undergoing IVM (in-vitro maturation) to maximize the potential for fertilizable eggs. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome and certain cancers or medical conditions that warrant avoiding supraphysiologic levels of estradiol from ovarian stimulation, may benefit from the retrieval of immature eggs from unstimulated ovaries.

Pregnancy outcomes using embryos created from ovaries recently exposed to chemotherapy in humans are not known but animal studies suggest there may be higher rates of miscarriage and birth defects.
 

Breast cancer – a special scenario

With every breast cancer patient, I review the theoretical concern over increasing estradiol levels during an IVF stimulation cycle with the potential impact on her cancer prognosis. Fortunately, the literature has not demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer or recurrence after undergoing an IVF cycle. Currently, the use of aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins along with a GnRH-antagonist is the protocol to maintain a lower estradiol level during stimulation, which may be of benefit for breast cancer prognosis. The use of aromatase inhibitors is an off-label indication for fertility with no definitive evidence of teratogenicity. Preimplantation genetic testing of embryos is available and approved by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for BRCA gene mutation patients.

Oncofertility is an exciting field to allow cancer survivors the option for a biological child. We recommend all our cancer patients meet with our reproductive psychologist to assist in coping with the overwhelming information presented in a short time frame.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) evaluated Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine as highly effective with a favorable safety profile, based on interim data from an ongoing phase 3 trial.

The panel acknowledged that further studies will be required post issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to collect additional data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. A briefing document released by the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, summarized interim results and included recommendations from VRBPAC on use of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine.

“On November 30, 2020, ModernaTX (the Sponsor) submitted an EUA request to FDA for an investigational COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273) intended to prevent COVID-19,” the committee wrote.
 

The mRNA-1273 vaccine trial

Among 30,351 individuals aged 18 years and older, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate was evaluated in a randomized, stratified, observer-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two injections of either 100 mcg of mRNA-1273 (n = 15,181) or saline placebo (n = 15,170) administered intramuscularly on day 1 and day 29.

The primary efficacy endpoint was efficacy of mRNA-1273 against PCR-confirmed COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days following the second dose. The primary safety endpoint was to characterize the safety of the vaccine following one or two doses.
 

Efficacy

Among 27,817 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 7, 2020), 5 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose occurred among vaccine recipients and 90 case occurred among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.5% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 86.5%-97.8%).

“Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point estimates across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID-19,” they reported.

Data from the final scheduled analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (data cutoff: Nov. 21, 2020; median follow-up of >2 months after dose 2), demonstrated 94.1% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval, 89.3%-96.8%), corresponding to 11 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group.

When stratified by age, the vaccine efficacy was 95.6% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.9%) for individuals 18-64 years of age and 86.4% (95% CI, 61.4%-95.5%) for those 65 years of age or older.

In addition, results from secondary analyses indicated benefit for mRNA-1273 in preventing severe COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and infection after the first dose, but these data were not conclusive.
 

Safety

Among 30,350 subjects included in the first interim analysis (data cutoff: Nov. 11, 2020; median follow-up of 7 weeks post second dose), no specific safety concerns were observed that would prevent issuance of an EUA.

Additional safety data (data cutoff: Nov. 25, 2020; median follow-up of 9 weeks post second dose) were provided on Dec. 7, 2020, but did not change the conclusions from the first interim analysis.

The most common vaccine-related adverse reactions were injection site pain (91.6%), fatigue (68.5%), headache (63.0%), muscle pain (59.6%), joint pain (44.8%), and chills (43.4%).

“The frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low (1.0% in the mRNA-1273 arm and 1.0% in the placebo arm), without meaningful imbalances between study arms,” they reported.

Myocardial infarction (0.03%), nephrolithiasis (0.02%), and cholecystitis (0.02%) were the most common SAEs that were numerically greater in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm; however, the small number of cases does not infer a casual relationship.

“The 2-dose vaccination regimen was highly effective in preventing PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 14 days after receipt of the second dose,” the committee wrote. “[However], it is critical to continue to gather data about the vaccine even after it is made available under EUA.”

The associated phase 3 study was sponsored by ModernaTX.

SOURCE: FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Published Dec. 17, 2020.

With increasing whooping cough numbers, developing an effective new vaccine against Bordetella pertussis is a priority. Results from the multifactorial PERISCOPE Project will help scientists and clinicians move forward.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Dominic Kelly, PhD, talked about vaccine-induced immunity and provided an overview of ongoing clinical trials in the PERISCOPE (Pertussis Correlates of Protection Europe) project in a key research session at the start of the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Dr. Kelly, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital in Oxford and a member of the Oxford Vaccines Group, leads one of the studies in the project looking at infant vaccination.

Dr. Kelly began his presentation by showing a figure depicting where vaccine-induced immunity fits into the larger suite of clinical studies. These studies involve mouse models, human challenge models, and infection patients. A key theme is the use of a core group of immunoassays across all studies, with the hope that they will allow effective cross comparisons.

Dr. Kelly stated, “If we find a correlate of protection in the challenge model, we can then interpret the vaccine studies in the light of that because we are using standardized constant immunoassays.”

The assays being used depend in part on the specific study and the volume of blood available. They will generally include Bordetella-specific antibody and functional antibody assays, as well as interesting studies collecting mucosal samples from infants and adults to look at serological responses. Also under examination are a range of enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot, flow cytometry, and culture techniques looking at Memory B cells, T cells, and gene expression.

Complementing these assay studies, PERISCOPE includes a series of clinical investigations designed to throw light on three areas of interest, described below:

First, researchers hope to gain a better understanding regarding the effects of the original whole cell vaccine versus the current acellular variety. The former uses an inactivated version of the whole organism. Epidemiological studies, animal data, and experience in the field demonstrate that whole-cell vaccination results in a broad, long-lasting, and effective immune response.

By comparison, the acellular pertussis vaccine consists of between three and five protein components, which are purified from cultured Bordetella pertussis. While it is an effective vaccine, its effects are less durable; routine use in some countries is associated with cyclical outbreaks of increasing severity.

A second issue for researchers involved in the PERISCOPE project concerns the effects of maternal immunization. In the United Kingdom in 2012, for example, an increasing number of cases were noted 6-7 years after adoption of an acellular vaccine for routine vaccination in the 2nd-3rd trimester of pregnancy. Vaccination appears to effectively control neonatal disease, but whether this influences infant immune responses and long-term control of pertussis for a population is unknown.

Finally, the group is interested in the effects of an acellular booster across all age groups. While the effects may be short-lived, the booster is a potential strategy for controlling a population by repeated boosting of immunity. This is another area where using novel immunoassays may aid better understanding.

To find answers, the consortium has established four studies: the Gambia Pertussis study (GaPs) in Gambia and AWARE, the sister study to GaPs in the United Kingdom, addressing the acellular pertussis versus cellular pertussis question; the Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland (MIFI) addressing maternal immunization; and the Booster against Pertussis (BERT) study across three countries (U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland) looking at acellular booster across age groups.
 

Gambia pertussis study

GaPs is the largest single study in the project and is being run at the Medical Research Council–funded London School of Tropical Medicine center in Gambia. Beate Kampmann, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London, England, is the project lead. It is due to complete in 2022. GaPs seeks to enroll 600 mother/infant pairs and randomize the mothers to either an acellular pertussis booster in pregnancy or a tetanus toxoid control vaccine. Infants are subsequently randomized to an acellular or whole-cell pertussis schedule of primary immunization. The vaccine doses are being given at 2, 3, and 4 months. The primary endpoint is a serological finding being measured at 9 months of age, when the infant would usually receive yellow fever, measles, and rubella vaccination.

GaPs has a number of pathways. Within each of the four arms generated by the two randomizations, the maternal randomization and the infant randomization, there are five subgroups. They are designed to study time points in subgroups A and B after the first dose in more detail, looking at the innate immune responses using gene expression. It will enable researchers to study adaptive immune responses to T cells and B cells after the second dose of vaccine. By employing a range of subgroups, the team can explore the immune profile using the assays referred to above. Such information should provide new insights into the differences between acellular and whole-cell vaccines.
 

The AWARE study

AWARE is the sister study to GaPs and looks at the acellular/whole pertussis issue. Because many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, have established maternal immunization programs, it is not possible to randomize mothers. Consequently, researchers have opted to recruit infants of mothers who have received an acellular vaccine in pregnancy and randomize them to either an acellular schedule of primary immunization or a whole-cell schedule.

The selected vaccine is ComVac5 from Bharat Biotech. This whole-cell vaccine differs from that used in Gambia. An early obstacle for AWARE has been seeking permission to import a non-conventional vaccine into Europe. It has delayed the anticipated end date to 2023. Participating infants will receive a two-dose schedule at 2 and 4 months of age per their randomization; then, both groups will go on to receive an acellular pertussis booster at 12 months. At all time points, the team will sample blood for cells and serum, as well as mucosal fluid from the nose. Because the mucosal surface is where the action is, this approach will likely generate new data around antibody responses.
 

The MIFI

The Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland is being run by Jussi Mertsola, of the University of Turku, Finland, and Qiushui He, of the National Public Health Institute, Turku. It is due to complete in late 2021. Where, in the United Kingdom, researchers are unable to randomize mothers because of the current guidelines, researchers in Finland do not have a maternal immunization program to consider. MIFI will randomize 80 mothers, 40 to immunization with acellular pertussis and 40 to a control group. Dr. Kelly stated that whole cell vaccines are not available for use in Finland. Participants will receive a two-dose schedule at 3 and 5 months. Blood samples will then be taken to compare the serological and cellular responses, which will help researchers understand the effects of maternal immunization. In addition, there will be sampling of mucosal fluid using a device that collects a standardized aliquot of fluid.
 

The BERT study

The final clinical element of PERISCOPE presented by Dr. Kelly was the Booster against Pertussis study. This study is near completion. It seeks to examine the use of an acellular booster across different age groups and three countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The study is being coordinated by Guy Berbers, PhD, at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands.

BERT comprises four cohorts (A, B, C, D) of different ages: 7-10 years (36 participants), 11-15 years (36 participants), mid-adult (25 participants), and older age (25 participants). After receiving an acellular booster, participants will undergo intense sampling. Sampling will take place immediately after immunization at day 7 and look at adaptive effects, then again at day 28 and day 365.

Because some participants will have already received whole cell or acellular vaccination, this approach will allow researchers to look at the effects of priming (i.e., how long the B cell/T cell antibody responses last).

Involving different countries across Europe ensures wide applicability of results, but also allows researchers to compare the effects of very different immunization histories.

At the end of this ESPID session, Dimitri Diavatopoulos, PhD, assistant professor at the Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, the Netherlands, commented that a future problem in studying pertussis vaccines and their potential clinical application is that most vaccination schedules now involve combination products. Obtaining a stand-alone vaccination may prove difficult, and there may be resistance if it complicates current vaccination programs.

Dr. Kelly acknowledged funding for the PERISCOPE project from GlaxoSmithKline and Pasteur Sanofi.

With increasing whooping cough numbers, developing an effective new vaccine against Bordetella pertussis is a priority. Results from the multifactorial PERISCOPE Project will help scientists and clinicians move forward.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Dominic Kelly, PhD, talked about vaccine-induced immunity and provided an overview of ongoing clinical trials in the PERISCOPE (Pertussis Correlates of Protection Europe) project in a key research session at the start of the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Dr. Kelly, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital in Oxford and a member of the Oxford Vaccines Group, leads one of the studies in the project looking at infant vaccination.

Dr. Kelly began his presentation by showing a figure depicting where vaccine-induced immunity fits into the larger suite of clinical studies. These studies involve mouse models, human challenge models, and infection patients. A key theme is the use of a core group of immunoassays across all studies, with the hope that they will allow effective cross comparisons.

Dr. Kelly stated, “If we find a correlate of protection in the challenge model, we can then interpret the vaccine studies in the light of that because we are using standardized constant immunoassays.”

The assays being used depend in part on the specific study and the volume of blood available. They will generally include Bordetella-specific antibody and functional antibody assays, as well as interesting studies collecting mucosal samples from infants and adults to look at serological responses. Also under examination are a range of enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot, flow cytometry, and culture techniques looking at Memory B cells, T cells, and gene expression.

Complementing these assay studies, PERISCOPE includes a series of clinical investigations designed to throw light on three areas of interest, described below:

First, researchers hope to gain a better understanding regarding the effects of the original whole cell vaccine versus the current acellular variety. The former uses an inactivated version of the whole organism. Epidemiological studies, animal data, and experience in the field demonstrate that whole-cell vaccination results in a broad, long-lasting, and effective immune response.

By comparison, the acellular pertussis vaccine consists of between three and five protein components, which are purified from cultured Bordetella pertussis. While it is an effective vaccine, its effects are less durable; routine use in some countries is associated with cyclical outbreaks of increasing severity.

A second issue for researchers involved in the PERISCOPE project concerns the effects of maternal immunization. In the United Kingdom in 2012, for example, an increasing number of cases were noted 6-7 years after adoption of an acellular vaccine for routine vaccination in the 2nd-3rd trimester of pregnancy. Vaccination appears to effectively control neonatal disease, but whether this influences infant immune responses and long-term control of pertussis for a population is unknown.

Finally, the group is interested in the effects of an acellular booster across all age groups. While the effects may be short-lived, the booster is a potential strategy for controlling a population by repeated boosting of immunity. This is another area where using novel immunoassays may aid better understanding.

To find answers, the consortium has established four studies: the Gambia Pertussis study (GaPs) in Gambia and AWARE, the sister study to GaPs in the United Kingdom, addressing the acellular pertussis versus cellular pertussis question; the Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland (MIFI) addressing maternal immunization; and the Booster against Pertussis (BERT) study across three countries (U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland) looking at acellular booster across age groups.
 

Gambia pertussis study

GaPs is the largest single study in the project and is being run at the Medical Research Council–funded London School of Tropical Medicine center in Gambia. Beate Kampmann, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London, England, is the project lead. It is due to complete in 2022. GaPs seeks to enroll 600 mother/infant pairs and randomize the mothers to either an acellular pertussis booster in pregnancy or a tetanus toxoid control vaccine. Infants are subsequently randomized to an acellular or whole-cell pertussis schedule of primary immunization. The vaccine doses are being given at 2, 3, and 4 months. The primary endpoint is a serological finding being measured at 9 months of age, when the infant would usually receive yellow fever, measles, and rubella vaccination.

GaPs has a number of pathways. Within each of the four arms generated by the two randomizations, the maternal randomization and the infant randomization, there are five subgroups. They are designed to study time points in subgroups A and B after the first dose in more detail, looking at the innate immune responses using gene expression. It will enable researchers to study adaptive immune responses to T cells and B cells after the second dose of vaccine. By employing a range of subgroups, the team can explore the immune profile using the assays referred to above. Such information should provide new insights into the differences between acellular and whole-cell vaccines.
 

The AWARE study

AWARE is the sister study to GaPs and looks at the acellular/whole pertussis issue. Because many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, have established maternal immunization programs, it is not possible to randomize mothers. Consequently, researchers have opted to recruit infants of mothers who have received an acellular vaccine in pregnancy and randomize them to either an acellular schedule of primary immunization or a whole-cell schedule.

The selected vaccine is ComVac5 from Bharat Biotech. This whole-cell vaccine differs from that used in Gambia. An early obstacle for AWARE has been seeking permission to import a non-conventional vaccine into Europe. It has delayed the anticipated end date to 2023. Participating infants will receive a two-dose schedule at 2 and 4 months of age per their randomization; then, both groups will go on to receive an acellular pertussis booster at 12 months. At all time points, the team will sample blood for cells and serum, as well as mucosal fluid from the nose. Because the mucosal surface is where the action is, this approach will likely generate new data around antibody responses.
 

The MIFI

The Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland is being run by Jussi Mertsola, of the University of Turku, Finland, and Qiushui He, of the National Public Health Institute, Turku. It is due to complete in late 2021. Where, in the United Kingdom, researchers are unable to randomize mothers because of the current guidelines, researchers in Finland do not have a maternal immunization program to consider. MIFI will randomize 80 mothers, 40 to immunization with acellular pertussis and 40 to a control group. Dr. Kelly stated that whole cell vaccines are not available for use in Finland. Participants will receive a two-dose schedule at 3 and 5 months. Blood samples will then be taken to compare the serological and cellular responses, which will help researchers understand the effects of maternal immunization. In addition, there will be sampling of mucosal fluid using a device that collects a standardized aliquot of fluid.
 

The BERT study

The final clinical element of PERISCOPE presented by Dr. Kelly was the Booster against Pertussis study. This study is near completion. It seeks to examine the use of an acellular booster across different age groups and three countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The study is being coordinated by Guy Berbers, PhD, at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands.

BERT comprises four cohorts (A, B, C, D) of different ages: 7-10 years (36 participants), 11-15 years (36 participants), mid-adult (25 participants), and older age (25 participants). After receiving an acellular booster, participants will undergo intense sampling. Sampling will take place immediately after immunization at day 7 and look at adaptive effects, then again at day 28 and day 365.

Because some participants will have already received whole cell or acellular vaccination, this approach will allow researchers to look at the effects of priming (i.e., how long the B cell/T cell antibody responses last).

Involving different countries across Europe ensures wide applicability of results, but also allows researchers to compare the effects of very different immunization histories.

At the end of this ESPID session, Dimitri Diavatopoulos, PhD, assistant professor at the Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, the Netherlands, commented that a future problem in studying pertussis vaccines and their potential clinical application is that most vaccination schedules now involve combination products. Obtaining a stand-alone vaccination may prove difficult, and there may be resistance if it complicates current vaccination programs.

Dr. Kelly acknowledged funding for the PERISCOPE project from GlaxoSmithKline and Pasteur Sanofi.

With increasing whooping cough numbers, developing an effective new vaccine against Bordetella pertussis is a priority. Results from the multifactorial PERISCOPE Project will help scientists and clinicians move forward.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Dominic Kelly, PhD, talked about vaccine-induced immunity and provided an overview of ongoing clinical trials in the PERISCOPE (Pertussis Correlates of Protection Europe) project in a key research session at the start of the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Dr. Kelly, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital in Oxford and a member of the Oxford Vaccines Group, leads one of the studies in the project looking at infant vaccination.

Dr. Kelly began his presentation by showing a figure depicting where vaccine-induced immunity fits into the larger suite of clinical studies. These studies involve mouse models, human challenge models, and infection patients. A key theme is the use of a core group of immunoassays across all studies, with the hope that they will allow effective cross comparisons.

Dr. Kelly stated, “If we find a correlate of protection in the challenge model, we can then interpret the vaccine studies in the light of that because we are using standardized constant immunoassays.”

The assays being used depend in part on the specific study and the volume of blood available. They will generally include Bordetella-specific antibody and functional antibody assays, as well as interesting studies collecting mucosal samples from infants and adults to look at serological responses. Also under examination are a range of enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot, flow cytometry, and culture techniques looking at Memory B cells, T cells, and gene expression.

Complementing these assay studies, PERISCOPE includes a series of clinical investigations designed to throw light on three areas of interest, described below:

First, researchers hope to gain a better understanding regarding the effects of the original whole cell vaccine versus the current acellular variety. The former uses an inactivated version of the whole organism. Epidemiological studies, animal data, and experience in the field demonstrate that whole-cell vaccination results in a broad, long-lasting, and effective immune response.

By comparison, the acellular pertussis vaccine consists of between three and five protein components, which are purified from cultured Bordetella pertussis. While it is an effective vaccine, its effects are less durable; routine use in some countries is associated with cyclical outbreaks of increasing severity.

A second issue for researchers involved in the PERISCOPE project concerns the effects of maternal immunization. In the United Kingdom in 2012, for example, an increasing number of cases were noted 6-7 years after adoption of an acellular vaccine for routine vaccination in the 2nd-3rd trimester of pregnancy. Vaccination appears to effectively control neonatal disease, but whether this influences infant immune responses and long-term control of pertussis for a population is unknown.

Finally, the group is interested in the effects of an acellular booster across all age groups. While the effects may be short-lived, the booster is a potential strategy for controlling a population by repeated boosting of immunity. This is another area where using novel immunoassays may aid better understanding.

To find answers, the consortium has established four studies: the Gambia Pertussis study (GaPs) in Gambia and AWARE, the sister study to GaPs in the United Kingdom, addressing the acellular pertussis versus cellular pertussis question; the Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland (MIFI) addressing maternal immunization; and the Booster against Pertussis (BERT) study across three countries (U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland) looking at acellular booster across age groups.
 

Gambia pertussis study

GaPs is the largest single study in the project and is being run at the Medical Research Council–funded London School of Tropical Medicine center in Gambia. Beate Kampmann, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London, England, is the project lead. It is due to complete in 2022. GaPs seeks to enroll 600 mother/infant pairs and randomize the mothers to either an acellular pertussis booster in pregnancy or a tetanus toxoid control vaccine. Infants are subsequently randomized to an acellular or whole-cell pertussis schedule of primary immunization. The vaccine doses are being given at 2, 3, and 4 months. The primary endpoint is a serological finding being measured at 9 months of age, when the infant would usually receive yellow fever, measles, and rubella vaccination.

GaPs has a number of pathways. Within each of the four arms generated by the two randomizations, the maternal randomization and the infant randomization, there are five subgroups. They are designed to study time points in subgroups A and B after the first dose in more detail, looking at the innate immune responses using gene expression. It will enable researchers to study adaptive immune responses to T cells and B cells after the second dose of vaccine. By employing a range of subgroups, the team can explore the immune profile using the assays referred to above. Such information should provide new insights into the differences between acellular and whole-cell vaccines.
 

The AWARE study

AWARE is the sister study to GaPs and looks at the acellular/whole pertussis issue. Because many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, have established maternal immunization programs, it is not possible to randomize mothers. Consequently, researchers have opted to recruit infants of mothers who have received an acellular vaccine in pregnancy and randomize them to either an acellular schedule of primary immunization or a whole-cell schedule.

The selected vaccine is ComVac5 from Bharat Biotech. This whole-cell vaccine differs from that used in Gambia. An early obstacle for AWARE has been seeking permission to import a non-conventional vaccine into Europe. It has delayed the anticipated end date to 2023. Participating infants will receive a two-dose schedule at 2 and 4 months of age per their randomization; then, both groups will go on to receive an acellular pertussis booster at 12 months. At all time points, the team will sample blood for cells and serum, as well as mucosal fluid from the nose. Because the mucosal surface is where the action is, this approach will likely generate new data around antibody responses.
 

The MIFI

The Pertussis Maternal Immunization Study in Finland is being run by Jussi Mertsola, of the University of Turku, Finland, and Qiushui He, of the National Public Health Institute, Turku. It is due to complete in late 2021. Where, in the United Kingdom, researchers are unable to randomize mothers because of the current guidelines, researchers in Finland do not have a maternal immunization program to consider. MIFI will randomize 80 mothers, 40 to immunization with acellular pertussis and 40 to a control group. Dr. Kelly stated that whole cell vaccines are not available for use in Finland. Participants will receive a two-dose schedule at 3 and 5 months. Blood samples will then be taken to compare the serological and cellular responses, which will help researchers understand the effects of maternal immunization. In addition, there will be sampling of mucosal fluid using a device that collects a standardized aliquot of fluid.
 

The BERT study

The final clinical element of PERISCOPE presented by Dr. Kelly was the Booster against Pertussis study. This study is near completion. It seeks to examine the use of an acellular booster across different age groups and three countries: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The study is being coordinated by Guy Berbers, PhD, at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands.

BERT comprises four cohorts (A, B, C, D) of different ages: 7-10 years (36 participants), 11-15 years (36 participants), mid-adult (25 participants), and older age (25 participants). After receiving an acellular booster, participants will undergo intense sampling. Sampling will take place immediately after immunization at day 7 and look at adaptive effects, then again at day 28 and day 365.

Because some participants will have already received whole cell or acellular vaccination, this approach will allow researchers to look at the effects of priming (i.e., how long the B cell/T cell antibody responses last).

Involving different countries across Europe ensures wide applicability of results, but also allows researchers to compare the effects of very different immunization histories.

At the end of this ESPID session, Dimitri Diavatopoulos, PhD, assistant professor at the Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, the Netherlands, commented that a future problem in studying pertussis vaccines and their potential clinical application is that most vaccination schedules now involve combination products. Obtaining a stand-alone vaccination may prove difficult, and there may be resistance if it complicates current vaccination programs.

Dr. Kelly acknowledged funding for the PERISCOPE project from GlaxoSmithKline and Pasteur Sanofi.

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

As the first American health care workers rolled up their sleeves for a COVID-19 vaccine, the images were instantly frozen in history, marking the triumph of scientific know-how and ingenuity. Cameras captured the first trucks pulling out of a warehouse in Portage, Mich., to the applause of workers and area residents. A day later, Boston Medical Center employees – some dressed in scrubs and wearing masks, face shields, and protective gowns – literally danced on the sidewalk when doses arrived. Some have photographed themselves getting the vaccine and posted it on social media, tagging it #MyCOVIDVax.

But the real story of the debut of COVID-19 vaccination is more methodical than monumental, a celebration of teamwork rather than of conquest. As hospitals waited for their first allotment, they reviewed their carefully drafted plans. They relied on each other, reaching across the usual divisions of competition and working collaboratively to share the limited supply. Their priority lists for the first vaccinations included environmental services workers who clean patient rooms and the critical care physicians who work to save lives.

“Health care workers have pulled together throughout this pandemic,” said Melanie Swift, MD, cochair of the COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation and Distribution Work Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’ve gone through the darkest of years relying so heavily on each other,” she said. “Now we’re pulling together to get out of it.”

Still, a rollout of this magnitude has hitches. Stanford issued an apology Dec. 18 after its medical residents protested a vaccine distribution plan that left out nearly all of its residents and fellows, many of whom regularly treat patients with COVID-19.

There have already been more than 287,000 COVID-19 cases and 953 deaths among health care workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In its guidance, the agency pointed out that the “continued protection of them at work, at home, and in the community remains a national priority.” That means vaccinating a workforce of about 21 million people, often the largest group of employees in a community.

“It collectively takes all of us to vaccinate our teams to maintain that stability in our health care infrastructure across the metro Atlanta area,” Christy Norman, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services at Emory Healthcare, told reporters in a briefing as the health system awaited its first delivery.
 

Don’t waste a dose

One overriding imperative prevails: Hospitals don’t want to waste any doses. The storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine make that tricky.

Once vials are removed from the pizza-box-shaped containers in ultracold storage and placed in a refrigerator, they must be used within 5 days. Thawed five-dose vials must be brought to room temperature before they are diluted, and they can remain at room temperature for no more than 2 hours. Once they are diluted with 1.8 mL of a 0.9% sodium chloride injection, the vials must be used within 6 hours.

COVID-19 precautions require employees to stay physically distant while they wait their turn for vaccination, which means the process can’t mirror typical large-scale flu immunization programs.

To prioritize groups, the vaccination planners at Mayo conducted a thorough risk stratification, considering each employee’s duties. Do they work in a dedicated COVID-19 unit? Do they handle lab tests or collect swabs? Do they work in the ICU or emergency department?

“We have applied some principles to make sure that as we roll it out, we prioritize people who are at greatest risk of ongoing exposure and who are really critical to maintaining the COVID response and other essential health services,” said Dr. Swift, associate medical director of Mayo’s occupational health service.

Mayo employees who are eligible for the first doses can sign up for appointments through the medical record system. If it seems likely that some doses will be left over at the end of the vaccination period – perhaps because of missed appointments – supervisors in high-risk areas can refer other health care workers. Mayo gave its first vaccines on Dec. 18, but the vaccination program began in earnest the following week. With the pleasant surprise that each five-dose vial actually provides six doses, 474 vials will allow for the vaccination of 2,844 employees in the top-priority group. “It’s going to expand each week or few days as we get more and more vaccine,” Dr. Swift said.
 

Sharing vials with small rural hospitals

Minnesota is using a hub-and-spoke system to give small rural hospitals access to the Pfizer vaccine, even though they lack ultracold storage and can’t use a minimum order of 975 doses. Large hospitals, acting as hubs, are sharing their orders. (The minimum order for Moderna is 100 doses.)

In south-central Minnesota, for example, two hub hospitals each have six spoke hospitals. Five of the 14 hospitals are independent, and the rest are part of large hospital systems, but affiliation doesn’t matter, said Eric Weller, regional health care preparedness coordinator for the South Central Healthcare Coalition. “We are all working together. It doesn’t matter what system you’re from,” he said. “We’re working for the good of the community.”

Each hospital designed a process to provide vaccine education, prioritize groups, allocate appointments, register people for vaccination, obtain signed consent forms, administer vaccines in a COVID-safe way, and provide follow-up appointments for the second dose. “We’re using some of the lessons we learned during H1N1,” said Mr. Weller, referring to immunization during the 2009 influenza pandemic. “The difference is that during H1N1, you could have lines of people.”

Coordinating the appointments will be more important than ever. “One of the vaccination strategies is to get people in groups of five, so you use one vial on those five people and don’t waste it,” he said.

Logistics are somewhat different for the Moderna vaccine, which will come in 10-dose vials that can be refrigerated for up to 30 days.

Both vaccines may produce mild flulike symptoms, such as fatigue, headache, or muscle pain, particularly after the second dose. That’s a sign that the immune system is reacting to the vaccine, but it’s also another consideration in the vaccination plans, because health care workers might take a day or two off work. “We’re not going to vaccinate a whole department at one time. It will be staggered,” said Kevin Smith, MD, medical director of the occupational medicine program at ProMedica, a health care system based in Toledo, Ohio.

Dr. Smith said he plans to encourage employees to use V-Safe, an app created by the CDC to track adverse effects in people who receive the vaccine. He pointed out that a day or two of achiness will be better than coping with the symptoms of COVID-19. Some employees who recovered from the infection still feel fatigued or haven’t regained their sense of taste and smell. “We are still monitoring quite a few employees to make sure they get back to 100%,” he said.
 

Hope for ending the pandemic

Public health officials have worried about vaccine hesitancy, even among health care workers, but so far, that concern seems overshadowed by enthusiasm. Dr. Smith said his department has been fielding calls from employees who want to know when they will be able to get the vaccine. “I think everyone feels relief,” he said. “We’re at the beginning of the end.”

At Mayo, Dr. Swift is surveying staff to gauge the willingness to get the vaccine, but she already senses excitement among employees. “No doubt there are still people who are hesitant, but I’m feeling a shift,” she said. “I’m feeling this momentum building of health care workers coming on board and wanting to take this vaccine, which is good, because they will set an example for their patients.”

For Colleen Kelley, MD, an infectious disease physician at Emory University in Atlanta who was principal investigator for an Emory-affiliated Moderna clinical trial site, it has been an emotional time. “Things were looking very bleak and dark for a time, and then we started to get these efficacy results that were greater than anyone imagined,” she said.

Dr. Kelley spends time talking to journalists and educating physician colleagues and hospital employees about how the vaccine was developed so quickly and how it works. “Everyone asks me, ‘Should I get it? Are you going to get it?’ My answer is ‘yes’ and ‘yes,’ “ she said. “I am 1,000% confident that the benefits of widespread vaccination outweigh the risks of continued COVID and a continued pandemic.”

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

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

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