All Content

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

At first, when news spread of a 28-year-old doctor on the COVID-19 front lines in Brazil who died after receiving an experimental vaccine, doubts arose about the safety of one of the most promising coronavirus vaccine candidates. But then the story flipped. Although the vaccine maker wouldn’t confirm it, the doctor appeared to have been in the control group and had received a dose of an established meningitis vaccine. The danger came from exposure to the coronavirus itself.

That tragedy underscores the ongoing risk of COVID-19 to healthcare workers, who have been designated by US advisory panels as part of phase 1A – the first to receive doses of any approved vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 6% of adults hospitalized with COVID from March to May were healthcare workers. The report was based on surveillance data from 13 states. The average age of the patients was 49 years. The agency set a November 15 vaccination “readiness date” for jurisdictions, such as state health departments, even though a vaccine isn’t likely to be authorized by then.

As hospitals scramble to prepare, their watchword is flexibility. They don’t yet know how many initial doses they will get, of which vaccine, or in what time frame. They have a sophisticated infrastructure to deliver flu vaccines each fall, but that framework doesn’t align with the likely scenarios of limited supply, additional reporting requirements, two-dose regimens, and differing storage needs.

“Healthcare organizations have consistently risen to the challenge. I wholeheartedly believe in their potential to do this,” Anna Legreid Dopp, PharmD, senior director of quality improvement and guidelines for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, told Medscape Medical News.
 

Healthcare workers won’t face a vaccine mandate

Even after months of caring for COVID patients, most clinicians remain vulnerable to infection – at work and in their communities. That was what occupational medicine physician Kevin Smith, MD, realized when his health system, Toledo, Ohio–based ProMedica, offered antibody testing to all its 50,000 employees. About 2% of the 6933 tests given came back positive, he says.

Yet many physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers share the public’s skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine that receives swift US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for emergency use. About half of nurses (47%) and almost 1 in 3 physicians (30%) say that they don’t want to get the vaccine when it first becomes available or that they’re unsure about vaccination, according to a Medscape survey.

Because vaccination of healthcare workers will set the stage for public acceptance of the vaccine, hospital epidemiologists are concerned. “We know that there will be some hesitancy in the healthcare workforce, just as there will be in the broader public,” said Marci Drees, MD, chief infection prevention officer and hospital epidemiologist for ChristianaCare in Newark, Delaware, and liaison from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.* “I do not think we can expect anyone to be vaccinated if we’re not willing to vaccinate ourselves.”

Healthcare workers are typically required to receive a range of vaccines, including measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and pertussis shots. Each year, close to half of US healthcare workers receive a flu vaccine under a workplace mandate. But COVID-19 will be different. The FDA requires anyone given products under an emergency use authorization (EUA) to receive information about risks and benefits and to have the option to decline. Hospitals instead will rely on education as they offer a novel vaccine (or more than one) that will have a minimum effectiveness of 50%.

ProMedica doesn’t require employees to be vaccinated against flu, but employees who decline must get a note from a doctor indicating that they have talked about the risks and benefits of the vaccine. A similar approach may be used with a COVID-19 vaccine, in which employees may be required to learn about the vaccine before they decline, Smith says. “I do believe some people will say they don’t want to get it,” he added.

Like colleagues across the country, Smith is identifying healthcare workers who are involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients and are at highest risk for exposure. Even within the top tier, those performing the riskiest tasks, such as respiratory therapists who provide breathing treatments that spread aerosols and droplets, will be tagged as a priority group, he says. Healthcare workers who spend the most time in proximity to COVID patients, such as nurses in a COVID unit, also are likely to get the first doses, he says.
 

Swirl, don’t shake, the vaccine

Hospitals are adept at ramping up vaccination campaigns. For example, last year, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, vaccinated nearly 16,000 employees against influenza in their 1-day “Flulapalooza” event. The medical center even earned a Guinness world record in 2011 at the first Flulapalooza for giving the most vaccinations ever within 8 hours.

The 10th anniversary of the event was canceled this year because of COVID restrictions. Instead, nurses, pharmacists, and other clinicians pitched in to vaccinate their coworkers against influenza. Now, plans for COVID-19 vaccination move forward amid uncertainty.

Instead of holding a mass event, “the delivery mechanisms will need to be more targeted and focused,” said Lori Rolando, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Occupational Health Clinic. In the CDC’s most recent version of its vaccination program “playbook,” the agency recommends giving the vaccines in an area that allows people to remain 6 feet apart and for them to wait for 15 minutes after receiving the shot to make sure they don’t faint, a potential risk common to almost all vaccines.

That’s the easy part. Planning becomes more complex, given the uncertainty as to which vaccines will receive approval and which one a hospital will receive.

If the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine receives EUA in 2020, about 10 to 20 million doses could be available in November and 20 to 30 million doses in December. The ultracold containers used to ship the vaccines have to be replenished with dry ice within 24 hours of receipt and every 5 days thereafter. Hospitals will need temperature probes to monitor storage in the containers. The five-dose vials can be refrigerated before administering, but only for 5 days. The product must be diluted, and it then must be used within 6 hours.

The Moderna vaccine will be somewhat less plentiful at first. About 10 million doses are expected in November and 15 million doses by the end of December. The 10-dose vials are stored in a freezer. Once they are placed in a refrigerator to thaw, they have to be used within 7 days, and once they’re removed from the refrigerator, they have to be used within 12 hours. The pharmacist or other vaccinator must swirl – but not shake! – the vial before delivering a dose, according to the CDC playbook.

As more information emerges about the vaccines, instructions may change, and Smith is steeled for shifting scenarios. “These are all draft plans. We’re going to modify as we go along,” he says.

The Pfizer vaccine requires a second dose at 21 days, and the Moderna vaccine targets the second dose at 28 days. In addition to using information systems to track vaccinations and any adverse effects, hospitals will give employees a card indicating what vaccine they received, the date it was administered, and the date on which they need to return. (At this point, the time frame for the second dose doesn’t appear to be flexible.)

Regardless of the vaccine, one message stays the same: COVID precautions must continue. That means mask wearing, social distancing, and hand washing – practices that also must be followed by healthcare workers who test positive for naturally acquired antibodies.

“I don’t think anyone expects the COVID vaccine to be 100% effective at preventing COVID,” says Rolando. “So all of the other tools in our toolbox are going to need to be continued to be used as well.”
 

*Correction, 11/12/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Drees' institution.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At first, when news spread of a 28-year-old doctor on the COVID-19 front lines in Brazil who died after receiving an experimental vaccine, doubts arose about the safety of one of the most promising coronavirus vaccine candidates. But then the story flipped. Although the vaccine maker wouldn’t confirm it, the doctor appeared to have been in the control group and had received a dose of an established meningitis vaccine. The danger came from exposure to the coronavirus itself.

That tragedy underscores the ongoing risk of COVID-19 to healthcare workers, who have been designated by US advisory panels as part of phase 1A – the first to receive doses of any approved vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 6% of adults hospitalized with COVID from March to May were healthcare workers. The report was based on surveillance data from 13 states. The average age of the patients was 49 years. The agency set a November 15 vaccination “readiness date” for jurisdictions, such as state health departments, even though a vaccine isn’t likely to be authorized by then.

As hospitals scramble to prepare, their watchword is flexibility. They don’t yet know how many initial doses they will get, of which vaccine, or in what time frame. They have a sophisticated infrastructure to deliver flu vaccines each fall, but that framework doesn’t align with the likely scenarios of limited supply, additional reporting requirements, two-dose regimens, and differing storage needs.

“Healthcare organizations have consistently risen to the challenge. I wholeheartedly believe in their potential to do this,” Anna Legreid Dopp, PharmD, senior director of quality improvement and guidelines for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, told Medscape Medical News.
 

Healthcare workers won’t face a vaccine mandate

Even after months of caring for COVID patients, most clinicians remain vulnerable to infection – at work and in their communities. That was what occupational medicine physician Kevin Smith, MD, realized when his health system, Toledo, Ohio–based ProMedica, offered antibody testing to all its 50,000 employees. About 2% of the 6933 tests given came back positive, he says.

Yet many physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers share the public’s skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine that receives swift US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for emergency use. About half of nurses (47%) and almost 1 in 3 physicians (30%) say that they don’t want to get the vaccine when it first becomes available or that they’re unsure about vaccination, according to a Medscape survey.

Because vaccination of healthcare workers will set the stage for public acceptance of the vaccine, hospital epidemiologists are concerned. “We know that there will be some hesitancy in the healthcare workforce, just as there will be in the broader public,” said Marci Drees, MD, chief infection prevention officer and hospital epidemiologist for ChristianaCare in Newark, Delaware, and liaison from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.* “I do not think we can expect anyone to be vaccinated if we’re not willing to vaccinate ourselves.”

Healthcare workers are typically required to receive a range of vaccines, including measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and pertussis shots. Each year, close to half of US healthcare workers receive a flu vaccine under a workplace mandate. But COVID-19 will be different. The FDA requires anyone given products under an emergency use authorization (EUA) to receive information about risks and benefits and to have the option to decline. Hospitals instead will rely on education as they offer a novel vaccine (or more than one) that will have a minimum effectiveness of 50%.

ProMedica doesn’t require employees to be vaccinated against flu, but employees who decline must get a note from a doctor indicating that they have talked about the risks and benefits of the vaccine. A similar approach may be used with a COVID-19 vaccine, in which employees may be required to learn about the vaccine before they decline, Smith says. “I do believe some people will say they don’t want to get it,” he added.

Like colleagues across the country, Smith is identifying healthcare workers who are involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients and are at highest risk for exposure. Even within the top tier, those performing the riskiest tasks, such as respiratory therapists who provide breathing treatments that spread aerosols and droplets, will be tagged as a priority group, he says. Healthcare workers who spend the most time in proximity to COVID patients, such as nurses in a COVID unit, also are likely to get the first doses, he says.
 

Swirl, don’t shake, the vaccine

Hospitals are adept at ramping up vaccination campaigns. For example, last year, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, vaccinated nearly 16,000 employees against influenza in their 1-day “Flulapalooza” event. The medical center even earned a Guinness world record in 2011 at the first Flulapalooza for giving the most vaccinations ever within 8 hours.

The 10th anniversary of the event was canceled this year because of COVID restrictions. Instead, nurses, pharmacists, and other clinicians pitched in to vaccinate their coworkers against influenza. Now, plans for COVID-19 vaccination move forward amid uncertainty.

Instead of holding a mass event, “the delivery mechanisms will need to be more targeted and focused,” said Lori Rolando, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Occupational Health Clinic. In the CDC’s most recent version of its vaccination program “playbook,” the agency recommends giving the vaccines in an area that allows people to remain 6 feet apart and for them to wait for 15 minutes after receiving the shot to make sure they don’t faint, a potential risk common to almost all vaccines.

That’s the easy part. Planning becomes more complex, given the uncertainty as to which vaccines will receive approval and which one a hospital will receive.

If the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine receives EUA in 2020, about 10 to 20 million doses could be available in November and 20 to 30 million doses in December. The ultracold containers used to ship the vaccines have to be replenished with dry ice within 24 hours of receipt and every 5 days thereafter. Hospitals will need temperature probes to monitor storage in the containers. The five-dose vials can be refrigerated before administering, but only for 5 days. The product must be diluted, and it then must be used within 6 hours.

The Moderna vaccine will be somewhat less plentiful at first. About 10 million doses are expected in November and 15 million doses by the end of December. The 10-dose vials are stored in a freezer. Once they are placed in a refrigerator to thaw, they have to be used within 7 days, and once they’re removed from the refrigerator, they have to be used within 12 hours. The pharmacist or other vaccinator must swirl – but not shake! – the vial before delivering a dose, according to the CDC playbook.

As more information emerges about the vaccines, instructions may change, and Smith is steeled for shifting scenarios. “These are all draft plans. We’re going to modify as we go along,” he says.

The Pfizer vaccine requires a second dose at 21 days, and the Moderna vaccine targets the second dose at 28 days. In addition to using information systems to track vaccinations and any adverse effects, hospitals will give employees a card indicating what vaccine they received, the date it was administered, and the date on which they need to return. (At this point, the time frame for the second dose doesn’t appear to be flexible.)

Regardless of the vaccine, one message stays the same: COVID precautions must continue. That means mask wearing, social distancing, and hand washing – practices that also must be followed by healthcare workers who test positive for naturally acquired antibodies.

“I don’t think anyone expects the COVID vaccine to be 100% effective at preventing COVID,” says Rolando. “So all of the other tools in our toolbox are going to need to be continued to be used as well.”
 

*Correction, 11/12/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Drees' institution.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

At first, when news spread of a 28-year-old doctor on the COVID-19 front lines in Brazil who died after receiving an experimental vaccine, doubts arose about the safety of one of the most promising coronavirus vaccine candidates. But then the story flipped. Although the vaccine maker wouldn’t confirm it, the doctor appeared to have been in the control group and had received a dose of an established meningitis vaccine. The danger came from exposure to the coronavirus itself.

That tragedy underscores the ongoing risk of COVID-19 to healthcare workers, who have been designated by US advisory panels as part of phase 1A – the first to receive doses of any approved vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 6% of adults hospitalized with COVID from March to May were healthcare workers. The report was based on surveillance data from 13 states. The average age of the patients was 49 years. The agency set a November 15 vaccination “readiness date” for jurisdictions, such as state health departments, even though a vaccine isn’t likely to be authorized by then.

As hospitals scramble to prepare, their watchword is flexibility. They don’t yet know how many initial doses they will get, of which vaccine, or in what time frame. They have a sophisticated infrastructure to deliver flu vaccines each fall, but that framework doesn’t align with the likely scenarios of limited supply, additional reporting requirements, two-dose regimens, and differing storage needs.

“Healthcare organizations have consistently risen to the challenge. I wholeheartedly believe in their potential to do this,” Anna Legreid Dopp, PharmD, senior director of quality improvement and guidelines for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, told Medscape Medical News.
 

Healthcare workers won’t face a vaccine mandate

Even after months of caring for COVID patients, most clinicians remain vulnerable to infection – at work and in their communities. That was what occupational medicine physician Kevin Smith, MD, realized when his health system, Toledo, Ohio–based ProMedica, offered antibody testing to all its 50,000 employees. About 2% of the 6933 tests given came back positive, he says.

Yet many physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers share the public’s skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine that receives swift US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for emergency use. About half of nurses (47%) and almost 1 in 3 physicians (30%) say that they don’t want to get the vaccine when it first becomes available or that they’re unsure about vaccination, according to a Medscape survey.

Because vaccination of healthcare workers will set the stage for public acceptance of the vaccine, hospital epidemiologists are concerned. “We know that there will be some hesitancy in the healthcare workforce, just as there will be in the broader public,” said Marci Drees, MD, chief infection prevention officer and hospital epidemiologist for ChristianaCare in Newark, Delaware, and liaison from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.* “I do not think we can expect anyone to be vaccinated if we’re not willing to vaccinate ourselves.”

Healthcare workers are typically required to receive a range of vaccines, including measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and pertussis shots. Each year, close to half of US healthcare workers receive a flu vaccine under a workplace mandate. But COVID-19 will be different. The FDA requires anyone given products under an emergency use authorization (EUA) to receive information about risks and benefits and to have the option to decline. Hospitals instead will rely on education as they offer a novel vaccine (or more than one) that will have a minimum effectiveness of 50%.

ProMedica doesn’t require employees to be vaccinated against flu, but employees who decline must get a note from a doctor indicating that they have talked about the risks and benefits of the vaccine. A similar approach may be used with a COVID-19 vaccine, in which employees may be required to learn about the vaccine before they decline, Smith says. “I do believe some people will say they don’t want to get it,” he added.

Like colleagues across the country, Smith is identifying healthcare workers who are involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients and are at highest risk for exposure. Even within the top tier, those performing the riskiest tasks, such as respiratory therapists who provide breathing treatments that spread aerosols and droplets, will be tagged as a priority group, he says. Healthcare workers who spend the most time in proximity to COVID patients, such as nurses in a COVID unit, also are likely to get the first doses, he says.
 

Swirl, don’t shake, the vaccine

Hospitals are adept at ramping up vaccination campaigns. For example, last year, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tennessee, vaccinated nearly 16,000 employees against influenza in their 1-day “Flulapalooza” event. The medical center even earned a Guinness world record in 2011 at the first Flulapalooza for giving the most vaccinations ever within 8 hours.

The 10th anniversary of the event was canceled this year because of COVID restrictions. Instead, nurses, pharmacists, and other clinicians pitched in to vaccinate their coworkers against influenza. Now, plans for COVID-19 vaccination move forward amid uncertainty.

Instead of holding a mass event, “the delivery mechanisms will need to be more targeted and focused,” said Lori Rolando, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Occupational Health Clinic. In the CDC’s most recent version of its vaccination program “playbook,” the agency recommends giving the vaccines in an area that allows people to remain 6 feet apart and for them to wait for 15 minutes after receiving the shot to make sure they don’t faint, a potential risk common to almost all vaccines.

That’s the easy part. Planning becomes more complex, given the uncertainty as to which vaccines will receive approval and which one a hospital will receive.

If the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine receives EUA in 2020, about 10 to 20 million doses could be available in November and 20 to 30 million doses in December. The ultracold containers used to ship the vaccines have to be replenished with dry ice within 24 hours of receipt and every 5 days thereafter. Hospitals will need temperature probes to monitor storage in the containers. The five-dose vials can be refrigerated before administering, but only for 5 days. The product must be diluted, and it then must be used within 6 hours.

The Moderna vaccine will be somewhat less plentiful at first. About 10 million doses are expected in November and 15 million doses by the end of December. The 10-dose vials are stored in a freezer. Once they are placed in a refrigerator to thaw, they have to be used within 7 days, and once they’re removed from the refrigerator, they have to be used within 12 hours. The pharmacist or other vaccinator must swirl – but not shake! – the vial before delivering a dose, according to the CDC playbook.

As more information emerges about the vaccines, instructions may change, and Smith is steeled for shifting scenarios. “These are all draft plans. We’re going to modify as we go along,” he says.

The Pfizer vaccine requires a second dose at 21 days, and the Moderna vaccine targets the second dose at 28 days. In addition to using information systems to track vaccinations and any adverse effects, hospitals will give employees a card indicating what vaccine they received, the date it was administered, and the date on which they need to return. (At this point, the time frame for the second dose doesn’t appear to be flexible.)

Regardless of the vaccine, one message stays the same: COVID precautions must continue. That means mask wearing, social distancing, and hand washing – practices that also must be followed by healthcare workers who test positive for naturally acquired antibodies.

“I don’t think anyone expects the COVID vaccine to be 100% effective at preventing COVID,” says Rolando. “So all of the other tools in our toolbox are going to need to be continued to be used as well.”
 

*Correction, 11/12/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Drees' institution.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new child cases, 73,883 for the most recent week, is a 20% increase over that previous high of 61,447 cases reported for the week ending Oct. 29. The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.

Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.

The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.

Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new child cases, 73,883 for the most recent week, is a 20% increase over that previous high of 61,447 cases reported for the week ending Oct. 29. The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.

Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.

The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.

Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new child cases, 73,883 for the most recent week, is a 20% increase over that previous high of 61,447 cases reported for the week ending Oct. 29. The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.

Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.

The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.

Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Zoonoses are no respecter of biological boundaries and are notorious for crossing genus and even higher taxonomic boundaries. SARS-CoV-2 is no exception, the current outbreak most probably having originated in bats, a common source of human-affecting zoonoses throughout history. But it is not a one-way street, and the virus has been shown to spread from infected humans to a variety of other land mammals, including our domesticated animals and kept zoo species.

A recent troubling report, however, has indicated that sea mammals may be part of a next wave of likely candidates for infection, put at risk by the current human pandemic and environmental degradation on a global scale, according to a the results of a genomic analysis of four major groups of sea mammals.

Researchers Sabateeshan Mathavarajah and colleagues from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., examined the sequences of the ACE2 receptors in the various marine mammal species. The ACE2 receptor has recently been identified as the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which allows for infection.

The researchers examined genomic databases of the marine species to determine if their ACE2 receptor sequences indicated the potential for high, medium, or low susceptibility to infection, as reported in Science of the Total Environment. Database analysis was performed for four groups: Cetacea (whales and dolphins), Pinnepidia (seals), Sirenia (sea cows), and Fissipedia (sea otters and polar bears).

The researchers defined susceptibility values based on comparable binding with the receptor and came up with the following subgroups: higher than human, high (resembles human ACE2), medium (resembles cat ACE2), and low (resembles dog ACE2). It has yet to be established if these marine mammals actually are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and what the impact of such an infection might have on animal health or humans who come in contact with infected animals.

They also cross-referenced for the level of species endangerment and with maps of potential wastewater contamination for certain areas that species came in contact with, using Alaska as the model.
 

Populations in danger

The researchers found 15 species that are already at risk globally that fall under the categories of near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered that were predicted to be medium to higher susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 virus than humans. Cross infection is of particular concern because other coronaviruses have been shown to have severe and lethal effects among many of these species.

Among the potentially impacted species were the near threatened–status Antarctic Mink whale and the stellar sea lion; the vulnerable sperm whale, northern fur seal, and Atlantic walrus; the endangered northern and southern sea otters, the North Pacific right whale, and the Amazon River dolphin; and the critically threatened Baiji and Vaquita dolphin species.
 

Pollution risks

In Alaska, as of Aug. 7th, 2020, there were 4,221 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and this number continues to rise, according to the researchers. Since there is a diversity of marine mammals in Alaska and their populations are well documented, they compared this information with available data on the wastewater treatment plants in the state. They were thus able to determine the potential geographic locations and species at high risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via wastewater effluent.

Among their findings, the city of Cold Bay discharges wastewater into Cold Bay, where there are Northern sea otter populations that are predicted to be highly susceptible to the virus. Beluga whales are also predicted to have high susceptibility and they can be found in Bristol Bay near Naknek, a city which relies only on lagoon treatment prior to the discharge of wastewater effluent; the city of Dillingham discharges wastewater into the Nushagak River where beluga whales are found. In Palmer, wastewater effluent flows into the Talkeetna River, which is a tributary to the Susitna River and home to two species predicted to have high susceptibility, beluga whales and harbor seals, the authors added.

Based on these results, the researchers predicted that there was likely a significant risk to sea mammals across the globe, especially where less-adequate treatment facilities and high population densities may lead to greater wastewater contamination.

“Given the proximity of marine animals to high-risk environments where viral spill over is likely, we must act with foresight to protect marine mammal species predicted to be at risk and mitigate the environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mathavarajah S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143346.

Zoonoses are no respecter of biological boundaries and are notorious for crossing genus and even higher taxonomic boundaries. SARS-CoV-2 is no exception, the current outbreak most probably having originated in bats, a common source of human-affecting zoonoses throughout history. But it is not a one-way street, and the virus has been shown to spread from infected humans to a variety of other land mammals, including our domesticated animals and kept zoo species.

A recent troubling report, however, has indicated that sea mammals may be part of a next wave of likely candidates for infection, put at risk by the current human pandemic and environmental degradation on a global scale, according to a the results of a genomic analysis of four major groups of sea mammals.

Researchers Sabateeshan Mathavarajah and colleagues from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., examined the sequences of the ACE2 receptors in the various marine mammal species. The ACE2 receptor has recently been identified as the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which allows for infection.

The researchers examined genomic databases of the marine species to determine if their ACE2 receptor sequences indicated the potential for high, medium, or low susceptibility to infection, as reported in Science of the Total Environment. Database analysis was performed for four groups: Cetacea (whales and dolphins), Pinnepidia (seals), Sirenia (sea cows), and Fissipedia (sea otters and polar bears).

The researchers defined susceptibility values based on comparable binding with the receptor and came up with the following subgroups: higher than human, high (resembles human ACE2), medium (resembles cat ACE2), and low (resembles dog ACE2). It has yet to be established if these marine mammals actually are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and what the impact of such an infection might have on animal health or humans who come in contact with infected animals.

They also cross-referenced for the level of species endangerment and with maps of potential wastewater contamination for certain areas that species came in contact with, using Alaska as the model.
 

Populations in danger

The researchers found 15 species that are already at risk globally that fall under the categories of near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered that were predicted to be medium to higher susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 virus than humans. Cross infection is of particular concern because other coronaviruses have been shown to have severe and lethal effects among many of these species.

Among the potentially impacted species were the near threatened–status Antarctic Mink whale and the stellar sea lion; the vulnerable sperm whale, northern fur seal, and Atlantic walrus; the endangered northern and southern sea otters, the North Pacific right whale, and the Amazon River dolphin; and the critically threatened Baiji and Vaquita dolphin species.
 

Pollution risks

In Alaska, as of Aug. 7th, 2020, there were 4,221 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and this number continues to rise, according to the researchers. Since there is a diversity of marine mammals in Alaska and their populations are well documented, they compared this information with available data on the wastewater treatment plants in the state. They were thus able to determine the potential geographic locations and species at high risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via wastewater effluent.

Among their findings, the city of Cold Bay discharges wastewater into Cold Bay, where there are Northern sea otter populations that are predicted to be highly susceptible to the virus. Beluga whales are also predicted to have high susceptibility and they can be found in Bristol Bay near Naknek, a city which relies only on lagoon treatment prior to the discharge of wastewater effluent; the city of Dillingham discharges wastewater into the Nushagak River where beluga whales are found. In Palmer, wastewater effluent flows into the Talkeetna River, which is a tributary to the Susitna River and home to two species predicted to have high susceptibility, beluga whales and harbor seals, the authors added.

Based on these results, the researchers predicted that there was likely a significant risk to sea mammals across the globe, especially where less-adequate treatment facilities and high population densities may lead to greater wastewater contamination.

“Given the proximity of marine animals to high-risk environments where viral spill over is likely, we must act with foresight to protect marine mammal species predicted to be at risk and mitigate the environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mathavarajah S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143346.

Zoonoses are no respecter of biological boundaries and are notorious for crossing genus and even higher taxonomic boundaries. SARS-CoV-2 is no exception, the current outbreak most probably having originated in bats, a common source of human-affecting zoonoses throughout history. But it is not a one-way street, and the virus has been shown to spread from infected humans to a variety of other land mammals, including our domesticated animals and kept zoo species.

A recent troubling report, however, has indicated that sea mammals may be part of a next wave of likely candidates for infection, put at risk by the current human pandemic and environmental degradation on a global scale, according to a the results of a genomic analysis of four major groups of sea mammals.

Researchers Sabateeshan Mathavarajah and colleagues from Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., examined the sequences of the ACE2 receptors in the various marine mammal species. The ACE2 receptor has recently been identified as the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which allows for infection.

The researchers examined genomic databases of the marine species to determine if their ACE2 receptor sequences indicated the potential for high, medium, or low susceptibility to infection, as reported in Science of the Total Environment. Database analysis was performed for four groups: Cetacea (whales and dolphins), Pinnepidia (seals), Sirenia (sea cows), and Fissipedia (sea otters and polar bears).

The researchers defined susceptibility values based on comparable binding with the receptor and came up with the following subgroups: higher than human, high (resembles human ACE2), medium (resembles cat ACE2), and low (resembles dog ACE2). It has yet to be established if these marine mammals actually are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and what the impact of such an infection might have on animal health or humans who come in contact with infected animals.

They also cross-referenced for the level of species endangerment and with maps of potential wastewater contamination for certain areas that species came in contact with, using Alaska as the model.
 

Populations in danger

The researchers found 15 species that are already at risk globally that fall under the categories of near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered that were predicted to be medium to higher susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 virus than humans. Cross infection is of particular concern because other coronaviruses have been shown to have severe and lethal effects among many of these species.

Among the potentially impacted species were the near threatened–status Antarctic Mink whale and the stellar sea lion; the vulnerable sperm whale, northern fur seal, and Atlantic walrus; the endangered northern and southern sea otters, the North Pacific right whale, and the Amazon River dolphin; and the critically threatened Baiji and Vaquita dolphin species.
 

Pollution risks

In Alaska, as of Aug. 7th, 2020, there were 4,221 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and this number continues to rise, according to the researchers. Since there is a diversity of marine mammals in Alaska and their populations are well documented, they compared this information with available data on the wastewater treatment plants in the state. They were thus able to determine the potential geographic locations and species at high risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via wastewater effluent.

Among their findings, the city of Cold Bay discharges wastewater into Cold Bay, where there are Northern sea otter populations that are predicted to be highly susceptible to the virus. Beluga whales are also predicted to have high susceptibility and they can be found in Bristol Bay near Naknek, a city which relies only on lagoon treatment prior to the discharge of wastewater effluent; the city of Dillingham discharges wastewater into the Nushagak River where beluga whales are found. In Palmer, wastewater effluent flows into the Talkeetna River, which is a tributary to the Susitna River and home to two species predicted to have high susceptibility, beluga whales and harbor seals, the authors added.

Based on these results, the researchers predicted that there was likely a significant risk to sea mammals across the globe, especially where less-adequate treatment facilities and high population densities may lead to greater wastewater contamination.

“Given the proximity of marine animals to high-risk environments where viral spill over is likely, we must act with foresight to protect marine mammal species predicted to be at risk and mitigate the environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mathavarajah S et al. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143346.

A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.

BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.

According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.

“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”

According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.

“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”

Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
 

Good news, but…

In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”

President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.

“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.

“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.

BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.

According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.

“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”

According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.

“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”

Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
 

Good news, but…

In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”

President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.

“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.

“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.

BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.

According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.

“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”

According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.

“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”

Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
 

Good news, but…

In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”

President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.

“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.

“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Survivors of Kawasaki disease remain at a higher long-term risk for cardiovascular events into young adulthood, including myocardial infarction, compared to people without the disease, new evidence reveals. The elevated risks emerged in survivors both with and without cardiovascular involvement at the time of initial diagnosis.

Overall risk of cardiovascular events was highest in the first year following Kawasaki disease diagnosis, and about 10 times greater than in healthy children, Cal Robinson, MD, said during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The risk gradually decreased over time. However, even 10 years after diagnosis of their illness, they still had a 39% higher risk,” said study author Dr. Robinson, a PGY4 pediatric nephrology fellow at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Dr. Robinson also put the numbers in perspective. “We fully acknowledged these are very rare events in children, especially healthy children, which is why we needed such a large cohort to study this. Interpret the numbers cautiously.”

In terms of patient and family counseling, “I would say children with Kawasaki disease have a higher risk of myocardial infarction, but the absolute risk is still low,” he added. For example, 16 Kawasaki disease survivors experienced a heart attack during follow-up, or 0.4% of the affected study population, compared to a rate of 0.1% among matched controls.

“These families are often very frightened after the initial Kawasaki disease diagnosis,” Dr. Robinson said. “We have to balance some discussion with what we know about Kawasaki disease without overly scaring or terrifying these families, who are already anxious.”

To quantify the incidence and timing of cardiovascular events and cardiac disease following diagnosis, Dr. Robinson and colleagues assessed large databases representing approximately 3 million children. They focused on children hospitalized with a Kawasaki disease diagnosis between 1995 and 2018. These children had a median length of stay of 3 days and 2.5% were admitted to critical care. The investigators matched his population 1:100 to unaffected children in Ontario.

Follow-up was up to 24 years (median, 11 years) in this retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Risks raised over a decade and beyond

Compared to matched controls, Kawasaki disease survivors had a higher risk for a cardiac event in the first year following diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 11.65; 95% confidence interval, 10.34-13.13). The 1- to 5-year risk was lower (aHR, 3.35), a trend that continued between 5 and 10 years (aHR, 1.87) and as well as after more than 10 years (aHR, 1.39).

The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was likewise highest in the first year after diagnosis (aHR, 3.27), followed by a 51% greater risk at 1-5 years, a 113% increased risk at 5-10 years, and a 17% elevated risk after 10 years.

The investigators compared the 144 Kawasaki disease survivors who experienced a coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) within 90 days of hospital admission to the 4,453 others who did not have a CAA. The risk for a composite cardiovascular event was elevated at each time point among those with a history of CAA, especially in the first year. The adjusted HR was 33.12 in the CAA group versus 10.44 in the non-CAA group.

“The most interesting finding of this study was that children with Kawasaki syndrome are at higher risk for composite cardiovascular events and major adverse cardiac events even if they were not diagnosed with coronary artery aneurysm,” session comoderator Shervin Assassi, MD, professor of medicine and director of division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said when asked to comment.

Dr. Robinson and colleagues also looked at outcomes based on presence or absence of coronary involvement at the time of Kawasaki disease diagnosis. For example, among those with initial coronary involvement, 15% later experienced a cardiovascular event and 10% experienced a major cardiovascular event.

“However, we were specifically interested in looking at children without initial coronary involvement. In this group, we also found these children were at increased risk for cardiovascular events compared to children without Kawasaki disease,” Dr. Robinson said. He said the distinction is important because approximately 95% of children diagnosed with Kawasaki disease do not feature initial coronary involvement.

In terms of clinical care, “our data provides an early signal that Kawasaki disease survivors – including those without initial coronary involvement – may be at higher risk of cardiovascular events into early adulthood.”
 

A call for closer monitoring

“Based on our results, we find that Kawasaki disease survivors may benefit from additional follow-up and surveillance for cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Robinson said. Early identification of heightened risk could allow physicians to more closely monitor this subgroup and emphasize potentially beneficial lifestyle modifications, including increasing physical activity, implementing a heart healthy diet, and avoiding smoking.

Mortality was not significantly different between groups. “Despite the risk of cardiac events we found, death was uncommon,” Dr. Robinson said. Among children with Kawasaki disease, 1 in 500 died during follow-up, so “the risk of death was actually lower than for children without Kawasaki disease.”

Similar findings of lower mortality have been reported in research out of Japan, he added during a plenary presentation at ACR 2020. Future research is warranted to evaluate this finding further, Dr. Robinson said.
 

Future plans

Going forward, the investigators plan to evaluate noncardiovascular outcomes in this patient population. They would also like to examine health care utilization following a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease “to better understand what kind of follow-up is happening now in Ontario,” Dr. Robinson said.

Another unanswered question is whether the cardiovascular events observed in the study stem from atherosclerotic disease or a different mechanism among survivors of Kawasaki disease.

The research was supported by a McMaster University Resident Research Grant, a Hamilton Health Sciences New Investigator Award, and Ontario’s Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Robinson had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0937.

Survivors of Kawasaki disease remain at a higher long-term risk for cardiovascular events into young adulthood, including myocardial infarction, compared to people without the disease, new evidence reveals. The elevated risks emerged in survivors both with and without cardiovascular involvement at the time of initial diagnosis.

Overall risk of cardiovascular events was highest in the first year following Kawasaki disease diagnosis, and about 10 times greater than in healthy children, Cal Robinson, MD, said during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The risk gradually decreased over time. However, even 10 years after diagnosis of their illness, they still had a 39% higher risk,” said study author Dr. Robinson, a PGY4 pediatric nephrology fellow at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Dr. Robinson also put the numbers in perspective. “We fully acknowledged these are very rare events in children, especially healthy children, which is why we needed such a large cohort to study this. Interpret the numbers cautiously.”

In terms of patient and family counseling, “I would say children with Kawasaki disease have a higher risk of myocardial infarction, but the absolute risk is still low,” he added. For example, 16 Kawasaki disease survivors experienced a heart attack during follow-up, or 0.4% of the affected study population, compared to a rate of 0.1% among matched controls.

“These families are often very frightened after the initial Kawasaki disease diagnosis,” Dr. Robinson said. “We have to balance some discussion with what we know about Kawasaki disease without overly scaring or terrifying these families, who are already anxious.”

To quantify the incidence and timing of cardiovascular events and cardiac disease following diagnosis, Dr. Robinson and colleagues assessed large databases representing approximately 3 million children. They focused on children hospitalized with a Kawasaki disease diagnosis between 1995 and 2018. These children had a median length of stay of 3 days and 2.5% were admitted to critical care. The investigators matched his population 1:100 to unaffected children in Ontario.

Follow-up was up to 24 years (median, 11 years) in this retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Risks raised over a decade and beyond

Compared to matched controls, Kawasaki disease survivors had a higher risk for a cardiac event in the first year following diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 11.65; 95% confidence interval, 10.34-13.13). The 1- to 5-year risk was lower (aHR, 3.35), a trend that continued between 5 and 10 years (aHR, 1.87) and as well as after more than 10 years (aHR, 1.39).

The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was likewise highest in the first year after diagnosis (aHR, 3.27), followed by a 51% greater risk at 1-5 years, a 113% increased risk at 5-10 years, and a 17% elevated risk after 10 years.

The investigators compared the 144 Kawasaki disease survivors who experienced a coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) within 90 days of hospital admission to the 4,453 others who did not have a CAA. The risk for a composite cardiovascular event was elevated at each time point among those with a history of CAA, especially in the first year. The adjusted HR was 33.12 in the CAA group versus 10.44 in the non-CAA group.

“The most interesting finding of this study was that children with Kawasaki syndrome are at higher risk for composite cardiovascular events and major adverse cardiac events even if they were not diagnosed with coronary artery aneurysm,” session comoderator Shervin Assassi, MD, professor of medicine and director of division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said when asked to comment.

Dr. Robinson and colleagues also looked at outcomes based on presence or absence of coronary involvement at the time of Kawasaki disease diagnosis. For example, among those with initial coronary involvement, 15% later experienced a cardiovascular event and 10% experienced a major cardiovascular event.

“However, we were specifically interested in looking at children without initial coronary involvement. In this group, we also found these children were at increased risk for cardiovascular events compared to children without Kawasaki disease,” Dr. Robinson said. He said the distinction is important because approximately 95% of children diagnosed with Kawasaki disease do not feature initial coronary involvement.

In terms of clinical care, “our data provides an early signal that Kawasaki disease survivors – including those without initial coronary involvement – may be at higher risk of cardiovascular events into early adulthood.”
 

A call for closer monitoring

“Based on our results, we find that Kawasaki disease survivors may benefit from additional follow-up and surveillance for cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Robinson said. Early identification of heightened risk could allow physicians to more closely monitor this subgroup and emphasize potentially beneficial lifestyle modifications, including increasing physical activity, implementing a heart healthy diet, and avoiding smoking.

Mortality was not significantly different between groups. “Despite the risk of cardiac events we found, death was uncommon,” Dr. Robinson said. Among children with Kawasaki disease, 1 in 500 died during follow-up, so “the risk of death was actually lower than for children without Kawasaki disease.”

Similar findings of lower mortality have been reported in research out of Japan, he added during a plenary presentation at ACR 2020. Future research is warranted to evaluate this finding further, Dr. Robinson said.
 

Future plans

Going forward, the investigators plan to evaluate noncardiovascular outcomes in this patient population. They would also like to examine health care utilization following a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease “to better understand what kind of follow-up is happening now in Ontario,” Dr. Robinson said.

Another unanswered question is whether the cardiovascular events observed in the study stem from atherosclerotic disease or a different mechanism among survivors of Kawasaki disease.

The research was supported by a McMaster University Resident Research Grant, a Hamilton Health Sciences New Investigator Award, and Ontario’s Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Robinson had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0937.

Survivors of Kawasaki disease remain at a higher long-term risk for cardiovascular events into young adulthood, including myocardial infarction, compared to people without the disease, new evidence reveals. The elevated risks emerged in survivors both with and without cardiovascular involvement at the time of initial diagnosis.

Overall risk of cardiovascular events was highest in the first year following Kawasaki disease diagnosis, and about 10 times greater than in healthy children, Cal Robinson, MD, said during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The risk gradually decreased over time. However, even 10 years after diagnosis of their illness, they still had a 39% higher risk,” said study author Dr. Robinson, a PGY4 pediatric nephrology fellow at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Dr. Robinson also put the numbers in perspective. “We fully acknowledged these are very rare events in children, especially healthy children, which is why we needed such a large cohort to study this. Interpret the numbers cautiously.”

In terms of patient and family counseling, “I would say children with Kawasaki disease have a higher risk of myocardial infarction, but the absolute risk is still low,” he added. For example, 16 Kawasaki disease survivors experienced a heart attack during follow-up, or 0.4% of the affected study population, compared to a rate of 0.1% among matched controls.

“These families are often very frightened after the initial Kawasaki disease diagnosis,” Dr. Robinson said. “We have to balance some discussion with what we know about Kawasaki disease without overly scaring or terrifying these families, who are already anxious.”

To quantify the incidence and timing of cardiovascular events and cardiac disease following diagnosis, Dr. Robinson and colleagues assessed large databases representing approximately 3 million children. They focused on children hospitalized with a Kawasaki disease diagnosis between 1995 and 2018. These children had a median length of stay of 3 days and 2.5% were admitted to critical care. The investigators matched his population 1:100 to unaffected children in Ontario.

Follow-up was up to 24 years (median, 11 years) in this retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Risks raised over a decade and beyond

Compared to matched controls, Kawasaki disease survivors had a higher risk for a cardiac event in the first year following diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 11.65; 95% confidence interval, 10.34-13.13). The 1- to 5-year risk was lower (aHR, 3.35), a trend that continued between 5 and 10 years (aHR, 1.87) and as well as after more than 10 years (aHR, 1.39).

The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was likewise highest in the first year after diagnosis (aHR, 3.27), followed by a 51% greater risk at 1-5 years, a 113% increased risk at 5-10 years, and a 17% elevated risk after 10 years.

The investigators compared the 144 Kawasaki disease survivors who experienced a coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) within 90 days of hospital admission to the 4,453 others who did not have a CAA. The risk for a composite cardiovascular event was elevated at each time point among those with a history of CAA, especially in the first year. The adjusted HR was 33.12 in the CAA group versus 10.44 in the non-CAA group.

“The most interesting finding of this study was that children with Kawasaki syndrome are at higher risk for composite cardiovascular events and major adverse cardiac events even if they were not diagnosed with coronary artery aneurysm,” session comoderator Shervin Assassi, MD, professor of medicine and director of division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said when asked to comment.

Dr. Robinson and colleagues also looked at outcomes based on presence or absence of coronary involvement at the time of Kawasaki disease diagnosis. For example, among those with initial coronary involvement, 15% later experienced a cardiovascular event and 10% experienced a major cardiovascular event.

“However, we were specifically interested in looking at children without initial coronary involvement. In this group, we also found these children were at increased risk for cardiovascular events compared to children without Kawasaki disease,” Dr. Robinson said. He said the distinction is important because approximately 95% of children diagnosed with Kawasaki disease do not feature initial coronary involvement.

In terms of clinical care, “our data provides an early signal that Kawasaki disease survivors – including those without initial coronary involvement – may be at higher risk of cardiovascular events into early adulthood.”
 

A call for closer monitoring

“Based on our results, we find that Kawasaki disease survivors may benefit from additional follow-up and surveillance for cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Robinson said. Early identification of heightened risk could allow physicians to more closely monitor this subgroup and emphasize potentially beneficial lifestyle modifications, including increasing physical activity, implementing a heart healthy diet, and avoiding smoking.

Mortality was not significantly different between groups. “Despite the risk of cardiac events we found, death was uncommon,” Dr. Robinson said. Among children with Kawasaki disease, 1 in 500 died during follow-up, so “the risk of death was actually lower than for children without Kawasaki disease.”

Similar findings of lower mortality have been reported in research out of Japan, he added during a plenary presentation at ACR 2020. Future research is warranted to evaluate this finding further, Dr. Robinson said.
 

Future plans

Going forward, the investigators plan to evaluate noncardiovascular outcomes in this patient population. They would also like to examine health care utilization following a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease “to better understand what kind of follow-up is happening now in Ontario,” Dr. Robinson said.

Another unanswered question is whether the cardiovascular events observed in the study stem from atherosclerotic disease or a different mechanism among survivors of Kawasaki disease.

The research was supported by a McMaster University Resident Research Grant, a Hamilton Health Sciences New Investigator Award, and Ontario’s Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Robinson had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0937.