Rheumatology News

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Latino patients participating in clinical trials of psoriasis treatments were found to have different patterns of disease and a lower level of quality of life, compared with White participants in the same studies, according to new data presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Our findings demonstrate that, though White psoriasis patients may have higher severity in certain body regions such as the trunk, axilla, and groin areas, Latino psoriasis patients have a greater distribution of involvement, particularly in their upper limbs,” reported Alyssa G. Ashbaugh, a third-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The study also found that psoriasis had a greater adverse impact on well-being, as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). At entry into the trials from which these patients were drawn, the higher DLQI score, significantly lower quality of life, was nearly two times higher (13.78 vs. 7.31; P = .01) among the Latino patients, compared with White patients.

This is not the first study to show a greater negative impact from psoriasis on Latinos than Whites, according to Ms. Ashbaugh. For example, Latinos had the worse quality of life at baseline by DLQI score than White, Asians, or Black participants in a trial of etanercept that enrolled more than 2000 patients.

In this retrospective chart review, patient characteristics were evaluated in all 21 Latino patients enrolled in psoriasis clinical trials at the University of California, Irvine, in a recent period. They were matched by age and gender to an equal number of White patients participating in the same trials.

The mean age at diagnosis of psoriasis was older in the Latino group than in the White population (42.4 vs. 35.6 years; P = .20), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The proportion of patients with severe disease on investigator global assessment was also greater but not significantly different in the Latino group, compared with the White group, respectively (42.9% vs. 28.6%; P = .10).

However, differences in the patterns of disease did reach significance. This included a lower mean Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index score of the trunk, axilla, and groin in Latinos (4.74 vs. 9.73; P = .02). But compared with White participants, Latinos had a higher mean percentage of body surface area involvement in the upper limbs (4.78 vs. 1.85; P = .004) and a higher percentage of total body surface area involvement (20.50 vs. 10.03; P = .02).

“While White patients were found to have lived many more years with psoriasis, it is important for future studies to examine whether this is due to earlier onset or delayed diagnosis, given the fact that minorities are less likely to have access to a dermatologist,” reported Ms. Ashbaugh, who performed this work under the guidance of the senior author, Natasha Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, with the department of dermatology, University of California, Irvine.

Overall, the study suggested that body surface coverage and severity is not similarly distributed in Latinos relative to Whites. Although Ms. Ashbaugh conceded that the small sample size and retrospective design of this study are important limitations, she believes that her study, along with previously published studies that suggest psoriasis characteristics may differ meaningfully by race or ethnicity, raises issues that should be explored in future studies designed to confirm differences and whether those differences should affect management.

Other studies have suggested “there are notable differences in the presentation of psoriasis between racial and ethnic groups with the Latino population often presenting to physicians with more severe psoriasis and increased body surface area involvement,” Ms. Ashbaugh noted. Although this appears to be one of the first studies to examine psoriasis characteristics in Latinos relative to Whites, she believes this is an area ripe for further analysis.

Psoriasis “is not a rare occurrence” in non-White populations even if U.S. data suggest that the prevalence in “people of color is lower than that of psoriasis in the U.S. white population,” Amy McMichael, MD, chair of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., commented in an interview after the meeting. She agreed that it cannot be assumed that psoriasis in skin of color has the same manifestations or responds to treatment in the same way as in White patients.

“Studies have suggested that lesion thickness and, often, extent of disease can be worse in patients of color. Few studies to date have examined the efficacy of treatments and impact of disease in these populations,” she said.

One exception was a study Dr. McMichael and colleagues published last year on the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 receptor A antagonist brodalumab for psoriasis in patients of color. The study showed that Black, Latino, and Asian patients participating in the AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 trials achieved similar outcomes as White participants.

“We published this study because this is one of the first, if not the first, to have enough patients of color to actually draw conclusions about the efficacy of the biologic as well as the patient-reported outcomes,” she explained.

Like the author of the evaluation of Latino patients undertaken at the University of California, Irvine, Dr. McMichael said studies of psoriasis specific to patients of color are needed.

“We cannot assume all patients of color will have the same outcomes as their Caucasian counterparts. It is imperative to include those of color in future psoriasis treatment trials in order to determine the efficacy of new medications,” she added, specifically calling for collection of data on patient-reported outcomes.

Ms. Ashbaugh has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. McMichael’s disclosures included serving as an investigator and/or consultant for companies that included Allergan, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Aclaris.

Latino patients participating in clinical trials of psoriasis treatments were found to have different patterns of disease and a lower level of quality of life, compared with White participants in the same studies, according to new data presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Our findings demonstrate that, though White psoriasis patients may have higher severity in certain body regions such as the trunk, axilla, and groin areas, Latino psoriasis patients have a greater distribution of involvement, particularly in their upper limbs,” reported Alyssa G. Ashbaugh, a third-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The study also found that psoriasis had a greater adverse impact on well-being, as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). At entry into the trials from which these patients were drawn, the higher DLQI score, significantly lower quality of life, was nearly two times higher (13.78 vs. 7.31; P = .01) among the Latino patients, compared with White patients.

This is not the first study to show a greater negative impact from psoriasis on Latinos than Whites, according to Ms. Ashbaugh. For example, Latinos had the worse quality of life at baseline by DLQI score than White, Asians, or Black participants in a trial of etanercept that enrolled more than 2000 patients.

In this retrospective chart review, patient characteristics were evaluated in all 21 Latino patients enrolled in psoriasis clinical trials at the University of California, Irvine, in a recent period. They were matched by age and gender to an equal number of White patients participating in the same trials.

The mean age at diagnosis of psoriasis was older in the Latino group than in the White population (42.4 vs. 35.6 years; P = .20), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The proportion of patients with severe disease on investigator global assessment was also greater but not significantly different in the Latino group, compared with the White group, respectively (42.9% vs. 28.6%; P = .10).

However, differences in the patterns of disease did reach significance. This included a lower mean Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index score of the trunk, axilla, and groin in Latinos (4.74 vs. 9.73; P = .02). But compared with White participants, Latinos had a higher mean percentage of body surface area involvement in the upper limbs (4.78 vs. 1.85; P = .004) and a higher percentage of total body surface area involvement (20.50 vs. 10.03; P = .02).

“While White patients were found to have lived many more years with psoriasis, it is important for future studies to examine whether this is due to earlier onset or delayed diagnosis, given the fact that minorities are less likely to have access to a dermatologist,” reported Ms. Ashbaugh, who performed this work under the guidance of the senior author, Natasha Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, with the department of dermatology, University of California, Irvine.

Overall, the study suggested that body surface coverage and severity is not similarly distributed in Latinos relative to Whites. Although Ms. Ashbaugh conceded that the small sample size and retrospective design of this study are important limitations, she believes that her study, along with previously published studies that suggest psoriasis characteristics may differ meaningfully by race or ethnicity, raises issues that should be explored in future studies designed to confirm differences and whether those differences should affect management.

Other studies have suggested “there are notable differences in the presentation of psoriasis between racial and ethnic groups with the Latino population often presenting to physicians with more severe psoriasis and increased body surface area involvement,” Ms. Ashbaugh noted. Although this appears to be one of the first studies to examine psoriasis characteristics in Latinos relative to Whites, she believes this is an area ripe for further analysis.

Psoriasis “is not a rare occurrence” in non-White populations even if U.S. data suggest that the prevalence in “people of color is lower than that of psoriasis in the U.S. white population,” Amy McMichael, MD, chair of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., commented in an interview after the meeting. She agreed that it cannot be assumed that psoriasis in skin of color has the same manifestations or responds to treatment in the same way as in White patients.

“Studies have suggested that lesion thickness and, often, extent of disease can be worse in patients of color. Few studies to date have examined the efficacy of treatments and impact of disease in these populations,” she said.

One exception was a study Dr. McMichael and colleagues published last year on the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 receptor A antagonist brodalumab for psoriasis in patients of color. The study showed that Black, Latino, and Asian patients participating in the AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 trials achieved similar outcomes as White participants.

“We published this study because this is one of the first, if not the first, to have enough patients of color to actually draw conclusions about the efficacy of the biologic as well as the patient-reported outcomes,” she explained.

Like the author of the evaluation of Latino patients undertaken at the University of California, Irvine, Dr. McMichael said studies of psoriasis specific to patients of color are needed.

“We cannot assume all patients of color will have the same outcomes as their Caucasian counterparts. It is imperative to include those of color in future psoriasis treatment trials in order to determine the efficacy of new medications,” she added, specifically calling for collection of data on patient-reported outcomes.

Ms. Ashbaugh has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. McMichael’s disclosures included serving as an investigator and/or consultant for companies that included Allergan, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Aclaris.