User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
Powered by CHEST Physician, Clinician Reviews, MDedge Family Medicine, Internal Medicine News, and The Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management.
Infant’s COVID-19–related myocardial injury reversed
Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.
and right upper lobe atelectasis.
The 2-month-old infant went home after more than 2 weeks in the hospital with no apparent lingering cardiac effects of the illness and not needing any oral heart failure medications, Madhu Sharma, MD, of the Children’s Hospital and Montefiore in New York and colleagues reported in JACC Case Reports. With close follow-up, the child’s left ventricle size and systolic function have remained normal and mitral regurgitation resolved. The case report didn’t mention the infant’s gender.
But before the straightforward postdischarge course emerged, the infant was in a precarious state, and Dr. Sharma and her team were challenged to diagnose the underlying causes.
The child, who was born about 7 weeks premature, first came to the hospital having turned blue after choking on food. Nonrebreather mask ventilation was initiated in the ED, and an examination detected a holosystolic murmur. A test for COVID-19 was negative, but a later test was positive, and a chest x-ray exhibited cardiomegaly and signs of fluid and inflammation in the lungs.
An electrocardiogram detected sinus tachycardia, ST-segment depression and other anomalies in cardiac function. Further investigation with a transthoracic ECG showed severely depressed left ventricle systolic function with an ejection fraction of 30%, severe mitral regurgitation, and normal right ventricular systolic function.
Treatment included remdesivir and intravenous antibiotics. Through the hospital course, the patient was extubated to noninvasive ventilation, reintubated, put on intravenous steroid (methylprednisolone) and low-molecular-weight heparin, extubated, and tested throughout for cardiac function.
By day 14, left ventricle size and function normalized, and while the mitral regurgitation remained severe, it improved later without HF therapies. Left ventricle ejection fraction had recovered to 60%, and key cardiac biomarkers had normalized. On day 16, milrinone was discontinued, and the care team determined the patient no longer needed oral heart failure therapies.
“Most children with COVID-19 are either asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, but our case shows the potential for reversible myocardial injury in infants with COVID-19,” said Dr. Sharma. “Testing for COVID-19 in children presenting with signs and symptoms of heart failure is very important as we learn more about the impact of this virus.”
Dr. Sharma and coauthors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.
Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.
and right upper lobe atelectasis.
The 2-month-old infant went home after more than 2 weeks in the hospital with no apparent lingering cardiac effects of the illness and not needing any oral heart failure medications, Madhu Sharma, MD, of the Children’s Hospital and Montefiore in New York and colleagues reported in JACC Case Reports. With close follow-up, the child’s left ventricle size and systolic function have remained normal and mitral regurgitation resolved. The case report didn’t mention the infant’s gender.
But before the straightforward postdischarge course emerged, the infant was in a precarious state, and Dr. Sharma and her team were challenged to diagnose the underlying causes.
The child, who was born about 7 weeks premature, first came to the hospital having turned blue after choking on food. Nonrebreather mask ventilation was initiated in the ED, and an examination detected a holosystolic murmur. A test for COVID-19 was negative, but a later test was positive, and a chest x-ray exhibited cardiomegaly and signs of fluid and inflammation in the lungs.
An electrocardiogram detected sinus tachycardia, ST-segment depression and other anomalies in cardiac function. Further investigation with a transthoracic ECG showed severely depressed left ventricle systolic function with an ejection fraction of 30%, severe mitral regurgitation, and normal right ventricular systolic function.
Treatment included remdesivir and intravenous antibiotics. Through the hospital course, the patient was extubated to noninvasive ventilation, reintubated, put on intravenous steroid (methylprednisolone) and low-molecular-weight heparin, extubated, and tested throughout for cardiac function.
By day 14, left ventricle size and function normalized, and while the mitral regurgitation remained severe, it improved later without HF therapies. Left ventricle ejection fraction had recovered to 60%, and key cardiac biomarkers had normalized. On day 16, milrinone was discontinued, and the care team determined the patient no longer needed oral heart failure therapies.
“Most children with COVID-19 are either asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, but our case shows the potential for reversible myocardial injury in infants with COVID-19,” said Dr. Sharma. “Testing for COVID-19 in children presenting with signs and symptoms of heart failure is very important as we learn more about the impact of this virus.”
Dr. Sharma and coauthors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.
Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.
and right upper lobe atelectasis.
The 2-month-old infant went home after more than 2 weeks in the hospital with no apparent lingering cardiac effects of the illness and not needing any oral heart failure medications, Madhu Sharma, MD, of the Children’s Hospital and Montefiore in New York and colleagues reported in JACC Case Reports. With close follow-up, the child’s left ventricle size and systolic function have remained normal and mitral regurgitation resolved. The case report didn’t mention the infant’s gender.
But before the straightforward postdischarge course emerged, the infant was in a precarious state, and Dr. Sharma and her team were challenged to diagnose the underlying causes.
The child, who was born about 7 weeks premature, first came to the hospital having turned blue after choking on food. Nonrebreather mask ventilation was initiated in the ED, and an examination detected a holosystolic murmur. A test for COVID-19 was negative, but a later test was positive, and a chest x-ray exhibited cardiomegaly and signs of fluid and inflammation in the lungs.
An electrocardiogram detected sinus tachycardia, ST-segment depression and other anomalies in cardiac function. Further investigation with a transthoracic ECG showed severely depressed left ventricle systolic function with an ejection fraction of 30%, severe mitral regurgitation, and normal right ventricular systolic function.
Treatment included remdesivir and intravenous antibiotics. Through the hospital course, the patient was extubated to noninvasive ventilation, reintubated, put on intravenous steroid (methylprednisolone) and low-molecular-weight heparin, extubated, and tested throughout for cardiac function.
By day 14, left ventricle size and function normalized, and while the mitral regurgitation remained severe, it improved later without HF therapies. Left ventricle ejection fraction had recovered to 60%, and key cardiac biomarkers had normalized. On day 16, milrinone was discontinued, and the care team determined the patient no longer needed oral heart failure therapies.
“Most children with COVID-19 are either asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, but our case shows the potential for reversible myocardial injury in infants with COVID-19,” said Dr. Sharma. “Testing for COVID-19 in children presenting with signs and symptoms of heart failure is very important as we learn more about the impact of this virus.”
Dr. Sharma and coauthors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.
FROM JACC CASE REPORTS
Key clinical point: Children presenting with COVID-19 should be tested for heart failure.
Major finding: A 2-month-old infant with COVID-19 had acute but reversible myocardial injury.
Study details: Single case report.
Disclosures: Dr. Sharma, MD, has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
Source: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.
Obesity, hypoxia predict severity in children with COVID-19
based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.
Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
Independent predictors of disease severity in children found
After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 109 cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).
“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.
Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.
During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.
“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.
“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.
“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
Findings confirm other clinical experience
The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”
Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.
The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.
SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.
based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.
Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
Independent predictors of disease severity in children found
After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 109 cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).
“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.
Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.
During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.
“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.
“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.
“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
Findings confirm other clinical experience
The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”
Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.
The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.
SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.
based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.
Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
Independent predictors of disease severity in children found
After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 109 cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).
“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.
Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.
During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.
“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.
“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.
“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
Findings confirm other clinical experience
The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”
Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.
The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.
SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
COVID-19 vaccine distribution could start in 2 weeks, Pence says
Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.
The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.
“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.
The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.
“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”
According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.
Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.
During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.
As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.
During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”
“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.
The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.
“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.
The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.
“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”
According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.
Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.
During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.
As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.
During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”
“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.
The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.
“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.
The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.
“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”
According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.
Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.
During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.
As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.
During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”
“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC shortens COVID-19 quarantine time to 10 or 7 days, with conditions
Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.
The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.
These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.
However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”
People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.
The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.
Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”
The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation
Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”
The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.
“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”
Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.
“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.
A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
Home for the holidays
Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.
If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.
Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”
“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.
“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.
The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.
These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.
However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”
People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.
The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.
Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”
The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation
Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”
The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.
“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”
Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.
“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.
A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
Home for the holidays
Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.
If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.
Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”
“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.
“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.
The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.
These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.
However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”
People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.
The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.
Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”
The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation
Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”
The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.
“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”
Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.
“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.
A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
Home for the holidays
Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.
If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.
Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”
“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.
“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. passes 1.3 million COVID-19 cases in children
The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.
For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.
Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.
There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.
The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.
For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.
Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.
There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.
The news on children and COVID-19 for Thanksgiving week does not provide a lot of room for thankfulness.
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their latest weekly report.
For those not counting, the week ending Nov. 26 was the fifth in a row to show “the highest weekly increase since the pandemic began,” based on data the AAP and CHA have been collecting from 49 state health departments (New York does not report ages), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The 153,608 new cases bring the total number of COVID-19 cases in children to almost 1.34 million in those jurisdictions, which is 12% of the total number of cases (11.2 million) among all ages. For just the week ending Nov. 26, children represented 13.7% of all new cases in the United States, down from 14.1% the previous week, according to the AAP/CHA data.
Among the states reporting child cases, Florida has the lowest cumulative proportion of child cases, 6.4%, but the state is using an age range of 0-14 years (no other state goes lower than 17 years). New Jersey and Texas are next at 6.9%, although Texas “reported age for only 6% of total confirmed cases,” the AAP and CHA noted.
There are 35 states above the national number of 12.0%, the highest being Wyoming at 23.3%, followed by Tennessee at 18.3% and South Carolina at 18.2%. The two southern states are the only ones to use an age range of 0-20 years for child cases, the two groups said in this week’s report, which did not include the usual data on testing, hospitalization, and mortality because of the holiday.
ACIP: Health workers, long-term care residents first tier for COVID-19 vaccine
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moderna filing for FDA emergency COVID-19 vaccine approval, reports 94.1% efficacy
The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.
A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.
The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.
“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”
Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
No serious vaccine-related safety issues
The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported.
Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.
One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
Ready to start shipping
Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.
The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.
A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.
The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.
“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”
Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
No serious vaccine-related safety issues
The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported.
Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.
One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
Ready to start shipping
Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.
The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.
A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.
The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.
“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”
Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
No serious vaccine-related safety issues
The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported.
Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.
One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
Ready to start shipping
Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.
The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood glucose on admission predicts COVID-19 severity in all
Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.
The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.
Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history.
Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.
The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.
However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission
The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.
Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.
“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.
“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.
The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”
However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia
The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.
Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.
After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)
Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).
Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001).
The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.
The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.
Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history.
Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.
The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.
However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission
The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.
Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.
“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.
“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.
The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”
However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia
The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.
Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.
After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)
Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).
Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001).
The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.
The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.
Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history.
Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.
The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.
However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission
The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.
Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.
“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.
“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.
The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”
However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia
The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.
Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.
After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)
Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).
Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001).
The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC panel delves into priorities for COVID vaccine distribution
On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.
An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.
ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.
“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”
There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.
But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.
ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.
In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.
ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.
“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.
ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.
“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.
Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.
“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
Broader access
Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.
The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.
Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.
At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.
In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”
In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.
“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.
Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.
“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.
Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.
There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.
Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.
“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.
Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.
“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.
ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.
“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.
An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.
ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.
“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”
There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.
But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.
ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.
In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.
ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.
“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.
ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.
“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.
Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.
“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
Broader access
Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.
The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.
Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.
At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.
In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”
In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.
“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.
Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.
“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.
Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.
There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.
Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.
“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.
Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.
“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.
ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.
“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.
An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.
ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.
“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”
There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.
But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.
ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.
In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.
ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.
“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.
ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.
“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.
Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.
“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
Broader access
Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.
The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.
Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.
At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.
In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”
In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.
“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.
Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.
“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.
Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.
There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.
Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.
“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.
Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.
“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.
ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.
“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA expands Xofluza indication to include postexposure flu prophylaxis
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.
“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.
The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.
A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.
The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.
Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.
The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.
Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.
Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.
Full prescribing information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.
“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.
The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.
A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.
The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.
Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.
The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.
Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.
Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.
Full prescribing information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.
“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.
The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.
A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.
The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.
Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.
The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.
Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.
Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.
Full prescribing information is available online.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.