Ob.Gyn. News

Labor induction at 39 weeks instead of 41 weeks may have a positive impact on neonatal outcomes, Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For much of the 20th century, term gestation has been defined as 37 weeks and beyond, said Dr. Caughey, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He noted several studies showing a U-shaped distribution in neonatal outcomes during the period from 37 weeks to 41 weeks for some outcomes, including Apgar scores. However, respiratory outcomes in a study from 2008 showed an increase, with meconium stained amniotic fluid increasing from 2.27% at 37 weeks to 10.33% at 41 weeks, and meconium aspiration increasing from 0.07% at 37 weeks to 0.27% at 41 weeks.

Late-term induction may carry more risk

The study “that really got everyone’s attention” in terms of neonatal outcomes was published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The cohort study included 24,077 elective cesarean deliveries between 37 and 42 weeks and reviewed a range of neonatal outcomes based on gestational age.

The rate of any adverse outcome decreased from 37 weeks to 39 weeks, “but then started going back up again,” Dr. Caughey said. He reviewed data from another study that factored in stillbirth and the risk of expectant management based on gestational age. A composite risk of perinatal death with expectant management was 15.4 deaths per 10,000 cases at 37 weeks and 39 weeks, but increased to 19.9 at 42 weeks.

“The morbidity appears to have a U-shaped distribution and the mortality seems to favor delivery at 39 weeks,” he said.

When it comes to induction of labor, medically indicated vs. nonmedically indicated does matter, Dr. Caughey said. Factors not considered a medical indication include impending macrosomia, increased risk for developing preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation, and a favorable cervix, he noted.

“For indicated induction of labor, the risks and benefits of induction of labor vs. expectant management have been considered and weighed in by the field of experts that care for pregnant women,” he said. With nonmedically indicated induction, experts “either decided that risks and benefits don’t favor induction of labor, or we haven’t come down hard on what the protocol might be.

“It is important to consider the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Caughey. The factors you want to include are neonatal outcomes, maternal preferences, and doctor preferences. However, “we want to be thoughtful about this intervention,” because of the association of higher costs and increased risk of cesarean with induction of labor.

As for timing of induction of labor, certain conditions favoring early-term induction include preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction, nonreassuring fetal testing, cholestasis, placenta previa or accreta, and twins.
 

Data support value of 39 weeks

As for late-term induction of labor, “at 41 weeks it is pretty clear that neonatal outcomes would be improved by delivery,” he said. Historically, clinicians have raised concerns about the increased risk of cesarean delivery following induction of labor, but this risk has not been borne out in recent studies. Dr. Caughey said. However, in the findings from the ARRIVE trial, a large study of 6,106 women who were randomized to induction or labor or expectant management at 39 weeks, “they found a reduction in their risk of cesarean delivery compared to expectant management (18.6% vs. 22.2%). Rates of preeclampsia also were lower among induced women, while rate of chorioamnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, and intensive care were similar between the groups. The researchers did not find significant differences in perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Caughey and colleagues conducted a systematic review of cesarean risk and induction of labor, and found a risk ratio of 0.83, similar to the ARRIVE trial. “The data suggest a consistently reduced risk for cesarean delivery with the induction of labor.”

However, “I would caution us to be thoughtful about research protocols vs. actual practice,” he said. “You must think about the environment.” The latent phase of labor can continue for a long time after induction, and patience is called for, he emphasized.

Dr. Caughey said that despite the ARRIVE trial and other studies, 39 weeks should not necessarily be the new standard for induction of labor. “The proportion of women impacted is dramatically different, if you would be inducing every woman at 39 weeks, that would be 60% to 70%,” which could have a great impact on resources.

Based on current research, early-term induction of labor at 37 weeks “is a bad idea without indication,” said Dr. Caughey. Induction at 41 weeks (sometimes considered post term) is the current ACOG recommendation and is associated with improved outcomes.

Induction of labor at full term (39-40 weeks) depends in part on the environment, and is not a violation of standard of care, he said. “Evidence is evolving, and individual hospitals are trying to figure this out.”

Cesarean data are convincing, at least in some settings, he said. However, “we need more global trials and different medical settings” to determine the optimal time for induction of labor.
 

Consider maternal preferences and characteristics

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Caughey was asked whether all women should be offered induction of labor at 39 weeks.

“I think it is OK if your entire health system has agreed to offering, to have that shared medical decision making, but you need to have careful conversation to make sure you have the resources,” he noted. Also, he said he believed clinicians should respond to women as they request labor induction at 39 weeks.

In response to a question about induction of labor in obese women, he noted that women with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m² are not equally successful with induction of labor. “We know they have a higher risk of cesarean delivery,” however, “it has been demonstrated that they have the same potential benefits of reduced risk of cesarean.”

As for factoring in the Bishop score to determine a favorable or unfavorable cervix, Dr. Caughey noted that women with a favorable cervix are more likely to go into labor on their own, while those with an unfavorable cervix may benefit from cervical ripening.

Dr. Caughey had no financial conflicts relevant to this talk, but disclosed serving as a medical adviser to Celmatix and Mindchild, as well as an endowment to his academic department from Bob’s Red Mill, an Oregon-based whole grain foods manufacturer.

Labor induction at 39 weeks instead of 41 weeks may have a positive impact on neonatal outcomes, Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For much of the 20th century, term gestation has been defined as 37 weeks and beyond, said Dr. Caughey, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He noted several studies showing a U-shaped distribution in neonatal outcomes during the period from 37 weeks to 41 weeks for some outcomes, including Apgar scores. However, respiratory outcomes in a study from 2008 showed an increase, with meconium stained amniotic fluid increasing from 2.27% at 37 weeks to 10.33% at 41 weeks, and meconium aspiration increasing from 0.07% at 37 weeks to 0.27% at 41 weeks.

Late-term induction may carry more risk

The study “that really got everyone’s attention” in terms of neonatal outcomes was published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The cohort study included 24,077 elective cesarean deliveries between 37 and 42 weeks and reviewed a range of neonatal outcomes based on gestational age.

The rate of any adverse outcome decreased from 37 weeks to 39 weeks, “but then started going back up again,” Dr. Caughey said. He reviewed data from another study that factored in stillbirth and the risk of expectant management based on gestational age. A composite risk of perinatal death with expectant management was 15.4 deaths per 10,000 cases at 37 weeks and 39 weeks, but increased to 19.9 at 42 weeks.

“The morbidity appears to have a U-shaped distribution and the mortality seems to favor delivery at 39 weeks,” he said.

When it comes to induction of labor, medically indicated vs. nonmedically indicated does matter, Dr. Caughey said. Factors not considered a medical indication include impending macrosomia, increased risk for developing preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation, and a favorable cervix, he noted.

“For indicated induction of labor, the risks and benefits of induction of labor vs. expectant management have been considered and weighed in by the field of experts that care for pregnant women,” he said. With nonmedically indicated induction, experts “either decided that risks and benefits don’t favor induction of labor, or we haven’t come down hard on what the protocol might be.

“It is important to consider the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Caughey. The factors you want to include are neonatal outcomes, maternal preferences, and doctor preferences. However, “we want to be thoughtful about this intervention,” because of the association of higher costs and increased risk of cesarean with induction of labor.

As for timing of induction of labor, certain conditions favoring early-term induction include preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction, nonreassuring fetal testing, cholestasis, placenta previa or accreta, and twins.
 

Data support value of 39 weeks

As for late-term induction of labor, “at 41 weeks it is pretty clear that neonatal outcomes would be improved by delivery,” he said. Historically, clinicians have raised concerns about the increased risk of cesarean delivery following induction of labor, but this risk has not been borne out in recent studies. Dr. Caughey said. However, in the findings from the ARRIVE trial, a large study of 6,106 women who were randomized to induction or labor or expectant management at 39 weeks, “they found a reduction in their risk of cesarean delivery compared to expectant management (18.6% vs. 22.2%). Rates of preeclampsia also were lower among induced women, while rate of chorioamnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, and intensive care were similar between the groups. The researchers did not find significant differences in perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Caughey and colleagues conducted a systematic review of cesarean risk and induction of labor, and found a risk ratio of 0.83, similar to the ARRIVE trial. “The data suggest a consistently reduced risk for cesarean delivery with the induction of labor.”

However, “I would caution us to be thoughtful about research protocols vs. actual practice,” he said. “You must think about the environment.” The latent phase of labor can continue for a long time after induction, and patience is called for, he emphasized.

Dr. Caughey said that despite the ARRIVE trial and other studies, 39 weeks should not necessarily be the new standard for induction of labor. “The proportion of women impacted is dramatically different, if you would be inducing every woman at 39 weeks, that would be 60% to 70%,” which could have a great impact on resources.

Based on current research, early-term induction of labor at 37 weeks “is a bad idea without indication,” said Dr. Caughey. Induction at 41 weeks (sometimes considered post term) is the current ACOG recommendation and is associated with improved outcomes.

Induction of labor at full term (39-40 weeks) depends in part on the environment, and is not a violation of standard of care, he said. “Evidence is evolving, and individual hospitals are trying to figure this out.”

Cesarean data are convincing, at least in some settings, he said. However, “we need more global trials and different medical settings” to determine the optimal time for induction of labor.
 

Consider maternal preferences and characteristics

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Caughey was asked whether all women should be offered induction of labor at 39 weeks.

“I think it is OK if your entire health system has agreed to offering, to have that shared medical decision making, but you need to have careful conversation to make sure you have the resources,” he noted. Also, he said he believed clinicians should respond to women as they request labor induction at 39 weeks.

In response to a question about induction of labor in obese women, he noted that women with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m² are not equally successful with induction of labor. “We know they have a higher risk of cesarean delivery,” however, “it has been demonstrated that they have the same potential benefits of reduced risk of cesarean.”

As for factoring in the Bishop score to determine a favorable or unfavorable cervix, Dr. Caughey noted that women with a favorable cervix are more likely to go into labor on their own, while those with an unfavorable cervix may benefit from cervical ripening.

Dr. Caughey had no financial conflicts relevant to this talk, but disclosed serving as a medical adviser to Celmatix and Mindchild, as well as an endowment to his academic department from Bob’s Red Mill, an Oregon-based whole grain foods manufacturer.

Labor induction at 39 weeks instead of 41 weeks may have a positive impact on neonatal outcomes, Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For much of the 20th century, term gestation has been defined as 37 weeks and beyond, said Dr. Caughey, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He noted several studies showing a U-shaped distribution in neonatal outcomes during the period from 37 weeks to 41 weeks for some outcomes, including Apgar scores. However, respiratory outcomes in a study from 2008 showed an increase, with meconium stained amniotic fluid increasing from 2.27% at 37 weeks to 10.33% at 41 weeks, and meconium aspiration increasing from 0.07% at 37 weeks to 0.27% at 41 weeks.

Late-term induction may carry more risk

The study “that really got everyone’s attention” in terms of neonatal outcomes was published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The cohort study included 24,077 elective cesarean deliveries between 37 and 42 weeks and reviewed a range of neonatal outcomes based on gestational age.

The rate of any adverse outcome decreased from 37 weeks to 39 weeks, “but then started going back up again,” Dr. Caughey said. He reviewed data from another study that factored in stillbirth and the risk of expectant management based on gestational age. A composite risk of perinatal death with expectant management was 15.4 deaths per 10,000 cases at 37 weeks and 39 weeks, but increased to 19.9 at 42 weeks.

“The morbidity appears to have a U-shaped distribution and the mortality seems to favor delivery at 39 weeks,” he said.

When it comes to induction of labor, medically indicated vs. nonmedically indicated does matter, Dr. Caughey said. Factors not considered a medical indication include impending macrosomia, increased risk for developing preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation, and a favorable cervix, he noted.

“For indicated induction of labor, the risks and benefits of induction of labor vs. expectant management have been considered and weighed in by the field of experts that care for pregnant women,” he said. With nonmedically indicated induction, experts “either decided that risks and benefits don’t favor induction of labor, or we haven’t come down hard on what the protocol might be.

“It is important to consider the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Caughey. The factors you want to include are neonatal outcomes, maternal preferences, and doctor preferences. However, “we want to be thoughtful about this intervention,” because of the association of higher costs and increased risk of cesarean with induction of labor.

As for timing of induction of labor, certain conditions favoring early-term induction include preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction, nonreassuring fetal testing, cholestasis, placenta previa or accreta, and twins.
 

Data support value of 39 weeks

As for late-term induction of labor, “at 41 weeks it is pretty clear that neonatal outcomes would be improved by delivery,” he said. Historically, clinicians have raised concerns about the increased risk of cesarean delivery following induction of labor, but this risk has not been borne out in recent studies. Dr. Caughey said. However, in the findings from the ARRIVE trial, a large study of 6,106 women who were randomized to induction or labor or expectant management at 39 weeks, “they found a reduction in their risk of cesarean delivery compared to expectant management (18.6% vs. 22.2%). Rates of preeclampsia also were lower among induced women, while rate of chorioamnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, and intensive care were similar between the groups. The researchers did not find significant differences in perinatal outcomes.

Dr. Caughey and colleagues conducted a systematic review of cesarean risk and induction of labor, and found a risk ratio of 0.83, similar to the ARRIVE trial. “The data suggest a consistently reduced risk for cesarean delivery with the induction of labor.”

However, “I would caution us to be thoughtful about research protocols vs. actual practice,” he said. “You must think about the environment.” The latent phase of labor can continue for a long time after induction, and patience is called for, he emphasized.

Dr. Caughey said that despite the ARRIVE trial and other studies, 39 weeks should not necessarily be the new standard for induction of labor. “The proportion of women impacted is dramatically different, if you would be inducing every woman at 39 weeks, that would be 60% to 70%,” which could have a great impact on resources.

Based on current research, early-term induction of labor at 37 weeks “is a bad idea without indication,” said Dr. Caughey. Induction at 41 weeks (sometimes considered post term) is the current ACOG recommendation and is associated with improved outcomes.

Induction of labor at full term (39-40 weeks) depends in part on the environment, and is not a violation of standard of care, he said. “Evidence is evolving, and individual hospitals are trying to figure this out.”

Cesarean data are convincing, at least in some settings, he said. However, “we need more global trials and different medical settings” to determine the optimal time for induction of labor.
 

Consider maternal preferences and characteristics

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Caughey was asked whether all women should be offered induction of labor at 39 weeks.

“I think it is OK if your entire health system has agreed to offering, to have that shared medical decision making, but you need to have careful conversation to make sure you have the resources,” he noted. Also, he said he believed clinicians should respond to women as they request labor induction at 39 weeks.

In response to a question about induction of labor in obese women, he noted that women with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m² are not equally successful with induction of labor. “We know they have a higher risk of cesarean delivery,” however, “it has been demonstrated that they have the same potential benefits of reduced risk of cesarean.”

As for factoring in the Bishop score to determine a favorable or unfavorable cervix, Dr. Caughey noted that women with a favorable cervix are more likely to go into labor on their own, while those with an unfavorable cervix may benefit from cervical ripening.

Dr. Caughey had no financial conflicts relevant to this talk, but disclosed serving as a medical adviser to Celmatix and Mindchild, as well as an endowment to his academic department from Bob’s Red Mill, an Oregon-based whole grain foods manufacturer.

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

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

Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.

RyanKing999/iStock/Getty Images

A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.

In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A safer alternative?

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.

In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.

Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.

“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.

“I’ve always been interested in this population because they are very vulnerable to legal implications and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.

To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.

At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.

The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).

Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.

Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).

Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
 

More evidence of risk

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”

She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.

However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.

“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.

Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.

Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.

“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.

“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
 

A harmful habit

Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.

Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.

“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.

In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.

“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.

When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.

“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.

RyanKing999/iStock/Getty Images

A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.

In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A safer alternative?

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.

In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.

Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.

“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.

“I’ve always been interested in this population because they are very vulnerable to legal implications and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.

To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.

At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.

The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).

Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.

Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).

Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
 

More evidence of risk

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”

She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.

However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.

“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.

Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.

Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.

“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.

“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
 

A harmful habit

Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.

Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.

“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.

In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.

“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.

When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.

“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Cannabis is ineffective at alleviating depression in pregnant women undergoing opioid agonist therapy (OAT), new research shows.

RyanKing999/iStock/Getty Images

A study of more than 120 pregnant women undergoing treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) showed that those who used cannabis to alleviate their depressive symptoms while undergoing OAT continued to have high depression scores at the end of opioid treatment.

In addition, depression scores improved for those who abstained from cannabis use after their first positive screen. Interestingly, cannabis use did not affect patient retention in treatment for OUD, the investigators note.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time looking at the impact of cannabis on the specific population of pregnant women with opioid use disorder, who are very vulnerable to depression,” lead author Abigail Richison, MD, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 31st Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

A safer alternative?

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health show that perinatal cannabis use increased by 62% between 2002 and 2014. Many women try to ameliorate their depression symptoms by using cannabis in the mistaken belief that it will help their depression, the investigators noted.

In addition, many women consider cannabis safer during pregnancy than prescribed medications for improving mood, said Dr. Richison. She said that cannabis does not alleviate depression and may even worsen it.

Dr. Richison noted that at her center, which has a women’s health program that treats pregnant women with OUDs, she was seeing a lot of patients who reported using cannabis to improve their mood.

“However, it didn’t seem like it was really helping, so I started researching about cannabis and depression,” Dr. Richison said.

“I’ve always been interested in this population because they are very vulnerable to legal implications and can be accused of perinatal substance use. I think it is very important to screen for depression as well as cannabis use in this population,” she added.

To shed some light on the impact of cannabis use by pregnant patients with OUD, the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of 121 pregnant women with OUD who attended outpatient OAT. All were prescribed buprenorphine.

At each visit, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained and urine drug screens were administered. The primary outcome was BDI score. Other measures included retention, urinary drug screen results, and antidepressant use.

The women were divided into two groups. The first comprised cannabis users, defined as having more than one urine drug screen that was positive for cannabis (n = 35). The other group comprised nonusers, defined as having urine drug screens that were negative for cannabis (n = 86).

Cannabis users were a little younger (mean age, 27 years) than non–cannabis users (mean age, 29.5 years; P = .006). Most of the participants were White (80.2%). Roughly half were on Medicaid, and most of the other participants had private insurance; a small number of women had no insurance.

Results showed that cannabis users had significantly higher BDI scores than non–cannabis users (mean scores, 16 vs. 9.3; P < .001).

Cannabis use continued to be associated with elevated scores for depression when controlling for opioid misuse and antidepressant use. There were no significant differences in retention or lapse to opioid misuse between the two groups.
 

More evidence of risk

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Carla Marienfeld, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said there is a growing body of evidence about risks from cannabis use during pregnancy, “a time where we already know the endocannabinoid system is very active in the developing fetus.”

She noted that the current study’s design makes it hard to know whether marijuana use causes worse depression.

However, “it clearly is not associated with helping to improve mood the way people who are using it believe or hope for,” said Dr. Marienfeld, who was not part of the research.

“The risk for harm in terms of worse mood for the pregnant woman or risks for harm to the developing fetus are being better understood with many new studies,” she added.

Yet as more and more states legalize medical marijuana, cannabis use during pregnancy is only going to rise, experts fear.

Cornel Stanciu, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was asked for comment, noted that public endorsement for potential benefits of the marijuana plant is at an all-time high.

“To date, 33 states and the District of Columbia have responded by legalizing medical marijuana, with 10 states also having legalized recreational use of marijuana. The current practice is said to be ahead of science, as robust research has been hindered by strict regulations – and most epidemiological studies point toward harmful associations,” Dr. Stanciu said in an interview.

“Given the decreased perception of harm by the general public, women are certainly compelled to seek what they perceive as more natural self-management remedies,” he said.
 

A harmful habit

Dr. Stanciu cited a recent study conducted in Colorado in which researchers contacted cannabis dispensaries, identified themselves as being pregnant, and asked for guidance in managing pregnancy-related symptoms.

Almost 70% of dispensaries recommended products to treat symptoms, particularly in the vulnerable first trimester; 36% of them also provided reassurance of the safety profile. Very few encouraged a discussion with the physician.

“Consumption of cannabis during pregnancy results in cannabinoid placental crossing and accumulation in the fetal brain, as well as other organs, where it interferes with neurodevelopment and the endocannabinoid system,” he said.

In addition, retrospective studies have shown an association between prenatal cannabis ingestion and anemia in the mothers, low birth weight, greater risk for preterm and stillbirths, and increased need for neonatal ICU admissions.

“Children born to mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy have higher rates of impulsivity, delinquency, learning and memory impairment, as well as executive function deficits. There is also an increased association with proneness to psychosis during middle childhood,” Dr. Stanciu said.

When used during pregnancy, cannabis has been associated with increased anxiety in mothers, as well as increased risk for depressive disorders, incidence of suicidal ideations and behavior, and symptoms of mania and psychosis among those with bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum conditions. Cannabis has also been linked to coingestion of other substances and with alcohol use.

“So cannabis can pose harm, especially when used by those with affective disorders,” Dr. Stanciu said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Richison, Dr. Marienfeld, and Dr. Stanciu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

Researchers have detected a highly contagious coronavirus variant in the United Kingdom, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to shut down parts of the country and triggering other nations to impose travel and shipping restrictions on England.

Mr. Johnson held a crisis meeting with ministers Monday after Saturday’s shutdown announcement. The prime minister said in a nationally televised address that this coronavirus variant may be “up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant” and was probably responsible for an increase in cases in southeastern England.

“There is still much we don’t know. While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness. Equally there is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will be any less effective against the new variant,” he said.

Public Health England says it is working to learn as much about the variant as possible. “We know that mortality is a lagging indicator, and we will need to continually monitor this over the coming weeks,” the agency says.

That scientific uncertainty about the variant’s threat shook European nations that were rushing to ship goods to England in advance of a Dec. 31 Brexit deadline. Under Brexit, which is short for “British exit,” the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on Jan. 31, 2020. Until then, the two sides will come up with new trade and security relationships.

European Union members Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands announced travel restrictions hours after Johnson’s speech.

Those restrictions created food uncertainty across the U.K., which imports about a quarter of its food from the EU, according to The New York Times. Long lines of trucks heading to ports in the U.K. came to a standstill on major roads such as the M20 near Kent and the Port of Dover.

Outside Europe, Canada, India, Iran, Israel, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey banned all incoming flights from the U.K. And more bans could come.
 

The U.S. reaction

The United States has not imposed any new limits on travel with the United Kingdom, although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has requested all passengers bound for John F. Kennedy International Airport from the U.K. be tested before boarding and a new travel ban be placed for Europe. He says the federal government must take action now to avoid a crisis situation like the one New York experienced in March and April.

“The United States has a number of flights coming in from the U.K. each day, and we have done absolutely nothing,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement on the governor’s webpage. “To me, this is reprehensible because this is what happened in the spring. How many times in life do you have to make the same mistake before you learn?”

Leading U.S. health officials have downplayed the dangers of the virus.

“We don’t know that it’s more dangerous, and very importantly, we have not seen a single mutation yet that would make it evade the vaccine,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Adm. Brett Giroir, MD, said Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “I can’t say that won’t happen in the future, but right now it looks like the vaccine will cover everything that we see.”

Dr. Giroir said the HHS and other U.S. government agencies will monitor the variant.

“Viruses mutate,” he said. “We’ve seen almost 4,000 different mutations among this virus. There is no indication that the mutation right now that they’re talking about is overcoming England.”
 

Where did the variant come from?

Public Health England says the coronavirus variant had existed in the U.K. since September and circulated at very low levels until mid-November.

“The increase in cases linked to the new variant first came to light in late November when PHE was investigating why infection rates in Kent were not falling despite national restrictions. We then discovered a cluster linked to this variant spreading rapidly into London and Essex,” the agency said.

Public Health England says there’s no evidence the new variant is resistant to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is now being given across the country to high-priority groups such as health care workers.

An article in The BMJ, a British medical journal, says the variant was first detected by Covid-19 Genomics UK, a consortium that tests the random genetic sequencing of positive COVID-19 samples around the U.K. The variant cases were mostly in the southeast of England.

A University of Birmingham professor said in a Dec. 15 briefing that the variant accounts for 20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk. “There are no data to suggest it had been imported from abroad, so it is likely to have evolved in the U.K.,” he said.

The variant is named VUI-202012/01, for the first “variant under investigation” in December 2020, BMJ says. It’s defined by a set of 17 mutations, with the most significant mutation in the spike protein the virus uses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor.

“Changes in this part of spike protein may, in theory, result in the virus becoming more infectious and spreading more easily between people,” the article says.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control says the variant emerged during the time of year when people usually socialize more.

“There is no indication at this point of increased infection severity associated with the new variant,” the agency said. “A few cases with the new variant have to date been reported by Denmark and the Netherlands and, according to media reports, in Belgium.”

Mr. Johnson announced tighter restrictions on England’s hardest-hit areas, such as the southeast and east of England, where new coronavirus cases have continued to rise. And he said people must cut back on their Christmas socializing.

“In England, those living in tier 4 areas should not mix with anyone outside their own household at Christmas, though support bubbles will remain in place for those at particular risk of loneliness or isolation,” he said.

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An influential federal advisory panel on Dec. 20 voted to recommend that the elderly and certain essential workers be the next group of Americans to get access to limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 13-1 for the recommendation. This builds on ACIP’s initial recommendation about which groups should be in the first wave of vaccinations, described as Phase 1a.

ACIP earlier recommended that Phase 1a include U.S. health care workers, a group of about 21 million people, and residents of long-term care facilities, a group of about 3 million.

On Dec. 20, ACIP said the next priority group, Phase 1b, should consist of what it called frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years and older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, Phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Phase 1c then would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in Phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million.

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorizations for two COVID-19 vaccines, one developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and another from Moderna. Other companies, including Johnson & Johnson, have advanced their potential rival COVID-19 vaccines into late-stages of testing. To date, about 2.83 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine have been distributed and 556,208 doses have been administered, according to the CDC.

But there will likely still be a period of months when competition for limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine will trigger difficult decisions. Current estimates indicate there will be enough supply to provide COVID-19 vaccines for 20 million people in December, 30 million people in January, and 50 million people in February, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

State governments and health systems will take ACIP’s recommendations into account as they roll out the initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines.

There’s clearly wide latitude in these decisions. Recently, for example, many members of Congress tweeted photos of themselves getting COVID-19 vaccines, despite not falling into ACIP’s description of the Phase 1 group.
 

Difficult choices

All ACIP members described the Dec. 20 vote as a difficult decision. It forced them to choose among segments of the U.S. population that could benefit from early access to the limited supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

“For every group we add, it means we subtract a group. For every group we subtract, it means they don’t get the vaccine” for some months, said ACIP member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “It’s incredibly humbling and heartbreaking.”

ACIP member Henry Bernstein, DO, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said he agreed with most of the panel’s recommendation. He said he fully supported the inclusion of adults aged 75 years and older and essential frontline workers in the second wave, Phase 1b. But he voted no because the data on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65-74 years is similar enough to the older group to warrant their inclusion in the first wave.

“Therefore, inclusion of the 65- to 74-year-old group in Phase 1b made more sense to me,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in New York.

As defined by the CDC, frontline essential workers included in phase 1b will be those commonly called “first responders,” such as firefighters and police officers. Also in this group are teachers, support staff, daycare providers, and those employed in grocery and agriculture industries. Others in this group would include U.S. Postal Service employees and transit workers.

ACIP panelists noted the difficulties that will emerge as government officials and leaders of health care organizations move to apply their guidance to real-world decisions about distributing a limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a potential to worsen existing disparities in access to health care, as people with more income may find it easier to obtain proof that they qualify as having a high-risk condition, said José Romero, MD, the chair of ACIP.

Many people “don’t have access to medical care and can’t come up with a doctor’s note that says, ‘I have diabetes,’ ” he said.

ACIP panelists also noted in their deliberations that people may technically qualify for a priority group but have little risk, such as someone with a chronic medical condition who works from home.

And the risk for COVID-19 remains serious even for those who will ultimately fall into the phase 2 for vaccination. Young adults have suffered serious complications following COVID-19, such as stroke, that may alter their lives dramatically, ACIP member Dr. Talbot said, adding that she is reminded of this in her work.

“We need to be very cautious about saying, ‘Young adults will be fine,’ ” she said. “I spent the past week on back-up clinical call and have read these charts and have cried every day.”

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines. The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About twice as many patients were admitted to hospitals in France for COVID-19 during a 2-month period than were admitted for seasonal influenza during a 3-month period the previous year, according to a study published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In-hospital mortality was nearly three times higher for COVID-19 than for seasonal influenza, researchers found. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (9.7% vs. 4%) and had longer average ICU stays (15 days vs. 8 days).

“SARS-CoV-2 appears to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications in patients with fewer comorbidities, and it is associated with a higher risk of mortality, particularly in adolescents, although any conclusions for this age group must be treated with caution considering the small number of deaths,” wrote Lionel Piroth, MD, PhD, of the infectious diseases department, Dijon (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study “is the largest to date to compare the two diseases and confirms that COVID-19 is far more serious than the flu,” study author Catherine Quantin, MD, PhD, said in a news release. “The finding that the COVID-19 death rate was three times higher than for seasonal influenza is particularly striking when reminded that the 2018/2019 flu season had been the worst in the past five years in France in terms of number of deaths,” continued Dr. Quantin, who jointly led the research. She is affiliated with the University Hospital of Dijon and Inserm.

The investigators analyzed data from a national database and compared 89,530 COVID-19 hospital admissions between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with 45,819 seasonal flu hospital admissions between Dec. 1, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2019.

The death rate was 16.9% among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with 5.8% among patients hospitalized with influenza.

Fewer patients younger 18 years were hospitalized with COVID-19 than with seasonal influenza (1.4% vs. 19.5%; 1,227 vs. 8,942), but a larger proportion of those younger than 5 years required intensive care for COVID-19 (2.9% vs. 0.9%). The fatality rates in children younger than 5 years were similar for both groups (0.5% vs. 0.2%).

Among patients aged 11-17 years, 5 of 548 (1.1%) patients with COVID-19 died, compared with 1 of 804 (0.1%) patients with flu.

Testing practices for influenza likely varied across hospitals, whereas testing for COVID-19 may have been more standardized. This could be a limitation of the study, the researchers noted. In addition, flu seasons vary year to year, and influenza cases may depend on vaccination coverage and residual population immunity.

“The large sample size is an important strength of the study and it is assumed that the indication for hospital admission in the two periods was the same and thus does not bias the results,” Eskild Petersen, MD, DMsc, wrote in a comment accompanying the study. “The results ... clearly show that COVID-19 is more serious than seasonal influenza.”

Furthermore, this study and prior research show that “COVID-19 is not an innocent infection in children and adolescents,” said Dr. Petersen, who is affiliated with the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Emerging Infections Task Force.

The study was funded by the French National Research Agency. Two authors have various financial ties to several pharmaceutical companies, details of which are available in the journal article. Dr. Petersen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Unanswered questions remain

Schrantz likewise said the high efficacy rate was important but not all that is needed. “[W]hat we know about this vaccine is it is very effective at preventing disease. We don’t have any understanding at this time whether or not these vaccines prevent infection and transmissibility.”

Bailey said, “The jury is still out on whether or not you can still transmit the virus after you’ve had the vaccine. Hopefully not, but we don’t really know that for sure.”

“It’s risky to think that once you get the shot in your arm everything goes back to normal. It doesn’t,” Bailey added.

Another unknown is the duration of protection following immunization. The Pfizer and Moderna products “have similar constructs, seem to have a reasonable safety profile, and excellent short-term efficacy,” El Sahly said. She cautioned, however, that long-term efficacy still needs to be determined.

Whether any rare adverse events will emerge in the long run is another question. Answers could come over time from the ongoing phase 3 trials, as well as from post-EUA surveillance among vaccine recipients.  

“Our work is not done after issuing an EUA,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a JAMA webinar on December 14. The FDA is closely monitoring for any adverse event rates above the normal background incidence. “We are going to be transparent about it if we are seeing anything that is not at base level.”

“The key is to be humble, keep your eyes open and know that once the vaccine is out there, there may be things we learn that we don’t know now. That is true for virtually any medical innovation,” Paul Offit, MD, director of The Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA VRBPAC, said during the AMA/Poynter Institute webinar.

During the same webinar, an attendee asked about prioritizing immunization for spouses and family members of healthcare workers. “My husband wants to know that too,” replied Patricia A. Stinchfield, APRN, CNP, pediatric nurse practitioner in infectious diseases at Children’s Minnesota, St. Paul.

“It is true we should be thinking about our healthcare workers’ family members. But at this point in time we just don’t have the supplies to address it that way,” said Stinchfield, who is also the president-elect of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Advantages beyond the numbers?

“The major advantage of having two vaccines is sheer volume,” Mehta said. An additional advantage of more than one product is the potential to offer an option when a specific vaccine is contraindicated. “We could offer someone a different vaccine…similar to what we do with the influenza vaccine.”

“The more the merrier in terms of having more vaccine products,” Schrantz said. Despite differences in shipping, storage, minimum age requirements, and dosing intervals, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are very similar, he said. “Really the only difference between these two vaccines is the proprietary lipid nanoparticle — the delivery vehicle if you will.”

Both vaccines “appear very similar in their capacity to protect against disease, to protect [people in] various racial and ethnic backgrounds, and in their capacity to protect against severe disease,” Offit said.

In terms of vaccines in the development pipeline, “We don’t know but we might start to see a difference with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or the Janssen vaccine, which are single dose. They might confer some advantages, but we are waiting on the safety and efficacy data,” Schrantz said.

As a two-dose vaccine, the AstraZeneca product does not offer an advantage on the dosing strategy, “but it is easier to transport than the mRNA vaccines,” he said. Some concerns with the initial data on the AstraZeneca vaccine will likely need to be addressed before the company applies for an EUA, Schrantz added.

“That is an important question,” El Sahly said. The ongoing studies should provide more data from participants of all ages and ethnic backgrounds that “will allow us to make a determination as to whether there is any difference between these two vaccines.

She added that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines seem comparable from the early data. “We’ll see if this stands in the long run.”

Future outlook

Now that the FDA approved emergency use of two COVID-19 vaccines, “we need each state to quickly implement their plans to get the vaccines into the hands of providers who need to give the vaccines,” Mehta said. “We are seeing very effective rollout in multiple regions of the country. And we hope to see that continue as we get more vaccines from manufacturers over the coming months.”

“Within a year of identifying the sequence of this virus we have two large clinical vaccine trials that show efficacy,” Offit said. “That was an amazing technologic accomplishment, but now comes the hard part. Mass producing this vaccine, getting it out there, making sure everybody who most benefits gets it, is going to be really, really hard.”

“But I’m optimistic,” Offit said. “If we can do this by next Thanksgiving, we’re going to see a dramatic drop in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and we can get our lives back together again.”

“My greatest hope is that a year from now we look back and realize we did something really amazing together,” Bailey said, “and we have a feeling of accomplishment and appreciation for all the hard work that has been done.”

Mehta shared the important message he shares when walking around the hospital: “While these vaccines are coming and they are very promising, we need to continue to remember the 3 Ws: wearing a mask, washing your hands, and watching your distance,” he said.

“With the combination of those 3Ws and those vaccines, we will hopefully come through this COVID pandemic.”

El Sahly receives funding through the NIH for her research, including her role as co-chair of the Moderna vaccine phase 3 clinical trial. Schrantz is a site investigator for the Moderna and Janssen vaccine trials. Mehta also receives funding through the NIH. None of these experts had any relevant financial disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As expected, the US Food and Drug Administration granted Moderna an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine December 18. The vaccine becomes the second authorized for emergency use in the United States, and will likely increase the number of vaccine doses available in the coming days.

There is one final step — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will need to recommend its use, as it did 2 days after the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine received its EUA on December 10.

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine is “a major milestone in trying to contain this pandemic,” Hana Mohammed El Sahly, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Scaling up distribution of the two vaccine products will come next. She notes that even under less emergent conditions, making sure people who need a vaccine receive it can be hard. “I hope the media attention around this will make more people aware that there are vaccines that might help them,” said El Sahly, chair of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The EUA for the Moderna vaccine follows a review by the independent VRBPAC members on December 17, which voted 20-0 with one abstention to recommend the EUA. The vaccine is authorized for use in people 18 and older.


Emergency approval of a second COVID-19 vaccine “is great — we need all the tools we can to fight this pandemic,” Stephen Schrantz, MD, infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, told Medscape Medical News. “The early data coming from Moderna looks good, and I agree with the FDA that an EUA is indicated.

“It’s incumbent upon all us healthcare professionals to put ourselves out there as supporting this vaccine and supporting people getting it,” Schrantz continued. “We want to make sure people who are on the fence understand this is a safe vaccine that has been vetted appropriately through the FDA and through phase 3 clinical trials.”

“I know the critical role physicians play as vaccine influencers,” AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, said during a December 14 webinar for journalists reporting on COVID-19 vaccines. “We have to continue to do what physicians have always done: review the evidence and trust the science. Lives are at stake.” The webinar was cosponsored by the AMA and the Poynter Institute.

Ramping up healthcare provider immunizations

“I am very excited to see the FDA’s positive review of the Moderna vaccine. We have been waiting to have another vaccine we can use for healthcare workers and staff, and now we have it,” Aneesh Mehta, MD, of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, told Medscape Medical News.

“We had been hoping for a vaccine with a 70% or 80% efficacy, and to see two vaccines now with greater than 90% efficacy is remarkable,” he added.

The efficacy levels associated with both mRNA vaccines “did exceed expectations for sure — this is not what we built the studies around. It was surprising in the good sense of the word,” said El Sahly, who is also associate professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.