User login
Moderna vaccine more effective than Pfizer and J&J
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.
“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.
“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.
The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.
After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.
The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.
“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.
The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.
Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID vaccine is safe, effective for children aged 5-11, Pfizer says
With record numbers of COVID-19 cases being reported in kids, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech have announced that their mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is safe and appears to generate a protective immune response in children as young as 5.
The companies have been testing a lower dose of the vaccine -- just 10 milligrams -- in children between the ages of 5 and 11. That’s one-third the dose given to adults.
In a clinical trial that included more than 2,200 children, Pfizer says two doses of the vaccines given 3 weeks apart generated a high level of neutralizing antibodies, comparable to the level seen in older children who get a higher dose of the vaccine.
On the advice of its vaccine advisory committee, the Food and Drug Administration asked vaccine makers to include more children in these studies earlier this year.
Rather than testing whether the vaccines are preventing COVID-19 illness in children, as they did in adults, the pharmaceutical companies that make the COVID-19 vaccines are looking at the antibody levels generated by the vaccines instead. The FDA has approved the approach in hopes of speeding vaccines to children, who are now back in school full time in most parts of the United States.
With that in mind, Evan Anderson, MD, a doctor with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta who is an investigator for the trial — and is therefore kept in the dark about its results — said it’s important to keep in mind that the company didn’t share any efficacy data today.
“We don’t know whether there were cases of COVID-19 among children that were enrolled in the study and how those compared in those who received placebo versus those that received vaccine,” he said.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. The company said there were no cases of heart inflammation called myocarditis observed. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
“We are pleased to be able to submit data to regulatory authorities for this group of school-aged children before the start of the winter season,” Ugur Sahin, MD, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, said in a news release. “The safety profile and immunogenicity data in children aged 5 to 11 years vaccinated at a lower dose are consistent with those we have observed with our vaccine in other older populations at a higher dose.”
When asked how soon the FDA might act on Pfizer’s application, Anderson said others had speculated about timelines of 4 to 6 weeks, but he also noted that the FDA could still exercise its authority to ask the company for more information, which could slow the process down.
“As a parent myself, I would love to see that timeline occurring quickly. However, I do want the FDA to fully review the data and ask the necessary questions,” he said. “It’s a little speculative to get too definitive with timelines.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
With record numbers of COVID-19 cases being reported in kids, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech have announced that their mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is safe and appears to generate a protective immune response in children as young as 5.
The companies have been testing a lower dose of the vaccine -- just 10 milligrams -- in children between the ages of 5 and 11. That’s one-third the dose given to adults.
In a clinical trial that included more than 2,200 children, Pfizer says two doses of the vaccines given 3 weeks apart generated a high level of neutralizing antibodies, comparable to the level seen in older children who get a higher dose of the vaccine.
On the advice of its vaccine advisory committee, the Food and Drug Administration asked vaccine makers to include more children in these studies earlier this year.
Rather than testing whether the vaccines are preventing COVID-19 illness in children, as they did in adults, the pharmaceutical companies that make the COVID-19 vaccines are looking at the antibody levels generated by the vaccines instead. The FDA has approved the approach in hopes of speeding vaccines to children, who are now back in school full time in most parts of the United States.
With that in mind, Evan Anderson, MD, a doctor with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta who is an investigator for the trial — and is therefore kept in the dark about its results — said it’s important to keep in mind that the company didn’t share any efficacy data today.
“We don’t know whether there were cases of COVID-19 among children that were enrolled in the study and how those compared in those who received placebo versus those that received vaccine,” he said.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. The company said there were no cases of heart inflammation called myocarditis observed. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
“We are pleased to be able to submit data to regulatory authorities for this group of school-aged children before the start of the winter season,” Ugur Sahin, MD, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, said in a news release. “The safety profile and immunogenicity data in children aged 5 to 11 years vaccinated at a lower dose are consistent with those we have observed with our vaccine in other older populations at a higher dose.”
When asked how soon the FDA might act on Pfizer’s application, Anderson said others had speculated about timelines of 4 to 6 weeks, but he also noted that the FDA could still exercise its authority to ask the company for more information, which could slow the process down.
“As a parent myself, I would love to see that timeline occurring quickly. However, I do want the FDA to fully review the data and ask the necessary questions,” he said. “It’s a little speculative to get too definitive with timelines.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
With record numbers of COVID-19 cases being reported in kids, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech have announced that their mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is safe and appears to generate a protective immune response in children as young as 5.
The companies have been testing a lower dose of the vaccine -- just 10 milligrams -- in children between the ages of 5 and 11. That’s one-third the dose given to adults.
In a clinical trial that included more than 2,200 children, Pfizer says two doses of the vaccines given 3 weeks apart generated a high level of neutralizing antibodies, comparable to the level seen in older children who get a higher dose of the vaccine.
On the advice of its vaccine advisory committee, the Food and Drug Administration asked vaccine makers to include more children in these studies earlier this year.
Rather than testing whether the vaccines are preventing COVID-19 illness in children, as they did in adults, the pharmaceutical companies that make the COVID-19 vaccines are looking at the antibody levels generated by the vaccines instead. The FDA has approved the approach in hopes of speeding vaccines to children, who are now back in school full time in most parts of the United States.
With that in mind, Evan Anderson, MD, a doctor with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta who is an investigator for the trial — and is therefore kept in the dark about its results — said it’s important to keep in mind that the company didn’t share any efficacy data today.
“We don’t know whether there were cases of COVID-19 among children that were enrolled in the study and how those compared in those who received placebo versus those that received vaccine,” he said.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. The company said there were no cases of heart inflammation called myocarditis observed. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
The company says side effects seen in the trial are comparable to those seen in older children. Pfizer says they plan to send their data to the FDA as soon as possible.
“We are pleased to be able to submit data to regulatory authorities for this group of school-aged children before the start of the winter season,” Ugur Sahin, MD, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, said in a news release. “The safety profile and immunogenicity data in children aged 5 to 11 years vaccinated at a lower dose are consistent with those we have observed with our vaccine in other older populations at a higher dose.”
When asked how soon the FDA might act on Pfizer’s application, Anderson said others had speculated about timelines of 4 to 6 weeks, but he also noted that the FDA could still exercise its authority to ask the company for more information, which could slow the process down.
“As a parent myself, I would love to see that timeline occurring quickly. However, I do want the FDA to fully review the data and ask the necessary questions,” he said. “It’s a little speculative to get too definitive with timelines.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA panel backs Pfizer's COVID booster for 65 and older, those at high risk
An expert panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions voted Sept. 17 against recommending third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for younger Americans.
But they didn’t kill the idea of booster shots completely.
In a dramatic, last-minute pivot, the 18 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend the FDA make boosters available for seniors and others at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, including health care workers.
The 16-2 vote was a rebuttal to Pfizer’s initial request. The company had asked the FDA to allow it to offer third doses to all Americans over the age of 16 at least six months after their second shot.
The company requested an amendment to the full approval the FDA granted in August. That is the typical way boosters are authorized in the U.S., but it requires a higher bar of evidence and more regulatory scrutiny than the agency had been able to give since Pfizer filed for the change just days after its vaccine was granted full approval.
The committee’s actions were also a rebuff to the Biden administration, which announced before the FDA approved them that boosters would be rolled out to the general public Sept. 20. The announcement triggered the resignations of two of the agency’s top vaccine reviewers, who both participated in the Sept. 17 meeting.
After initially voting against Pfizer’s request to amend its license, the committee then worked on the fly with FDA officials to craft a strategy that would allow third doses to be offered under an emergency use authorization (EUA).
An EUA requires a lower standard of evidence and is more specific. It will restrict third doses to a more defined population than a change to the license would. It will also require Pfizer to continue to monitor the safety of third doses as they begin to be administered.
“This should demonstrate to the public that the members of this committee are independent of the FDA and that we do, in fact, bring our voices to the table when we are asked to serve on this committee,” said Archana Chattergee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who is dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in Illinois.
The FDA doesn’t have to follow the committee’s recommendation, but almost certainly will, though regulators said they may still make some changes.
“We are not bound at FDA by your vote, we can tweak this,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Dr. Marks participated in the meeting and helped to draft the revised proposal.
If the FDA issues the recommended EUA, a council of independent advisors to the CDC will make specific recommendations about how the third doses should be given. After the CDC director weighs in, boosters will begin rolling out to the public.
Moderna submitted data to the FDA on Sept. 1 in support of adding a booster dose to its regimen. The agency has not yet scheduled a public review of that data.
The Biden administration is prepared to administer shots as soon as they get the green light, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said at a White House briefing earlier Sept. 17.
"This process is consistent with what we outlined in August where our goals were to stay ahead of the virus," Dr. Murthy said. "Our goal then and now is to protect the health and well-being of the public. As soon as the FDA and CDC complete their evaluations, we will be ready to move forward accordingly."
He added, "We've used this time since our August announcement to communicate and coordinate with pharmacy partners, nursing homes, states, and localities."
White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said vaccine supply is "in good shape for all Americans to get boosters as recommended."
Taking cues from Israel
In considering Pfizer’s original request, the committee overwhelmingly felt that they didn’t have enough information to say that the benefits of an additional dose of vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds would outweigh its risk. Teens have the highest risk of rare heart inflammation after vaccination, a side effect known as myocarditis. It is not known how the vaccines are causing these cases of heart swelling. Most who have been diagnosed with the condition have recovered, though some have needed hospital care.
Pfizer didn’t include 16- and 17-year-olds in its studies of boosters, which included about 300 people between the ages of 18 and 55. The company acknowledged that gap in its data but pointed to FDA guidance that said evidence from adults could be extrapolated to teens.
“We don’t know that much about risks,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, who is editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Much of the data on the potential benefits and harms of third Pfizer doses comes from Israel, which first began rolling out boosters to older adults in July.
In a highly anticipated presentation, Sharon Alroy-Preis, Israel’s director of public health services, joined the meeting to describe Israel’s experience with boosters.
Israel began to see a third surge of COVID-19 cases in December.
“This was after having two waves and two lockdowns,” Ms. Alroy-Preis said. By the third surge, she said, Israelis were tired.
“We decided on a lockdown, but the compliance of the public wasn’t as it was in the previous two waves,” she said.
Then the vaccine arrived. Israel started vaccinations as soon as the FDA approved it, and they quickly vaccinated a high percentage of their population, about 3 months faster than the rest of the world.
All vaccinations are reported and tracked by the Ministry of Health, so the country is able to keep close tabs on how well the shots are working.
As vaccines rolled out, cases fell dramatically. The pandemic seemed to be behind them. Delta arrived in March. By June, their cases were doubling every 10 days, despite about 80% of their most vulnerable adults being fully vaccinated, she said.
Most concerning was that about 60% of severe cases were breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals.
“We had to stop and figure out, was this a Delta issue,” she said. “Or was this a waning immunity issue.”
“We had some clue that it might not be the Delta variant, at least not alone,” she said.
People who had originally been first in line for the vaccines, seniors and health care workers, were having the highest rates of breakthrough infections. People further away from their second dose were more likely to get a breakthrough infection.
Ms. Alroy-Preis said that if they had not started booster doses in July, their hospitals would have been overwhelmed. They had projected that they would have 2,000 cases in the hospital each day.
Boosters have helped to flatten the curve, though they are still seeing a significant number of infections.
Data from Israel presented at the meeting show boosters are largely safe and effective at reducing severe outcomes in seniors. Israeli experience also showed that third doses, which generate very high levels of neutralizing antibodies—the first and fastest line of the body’s immune defense - -may also slow transmission of the virus.
Key differences in the U.S.
The benefit of slowing down the explosive spread of a highly contagious virus was tantalizing, but many members noted that circumstances in Israel are very different than in the United States. Israel went into its current Delta surge already having high levels of vaccination in its population. They also relied on the Pfizer vaccine almost exclusively for their campaign.
The United States used a different mix of vaccines – Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson -- and doesn’t have the same high level of vaccination coverage of its population.
In the United States, transmission is mainly being driven by unvaccinated people, Dr. Rubin noted.
“That really means the primary benefit is going to be in reducing disease,” he said, “And we know the people who are going to benefit from that … and those are the kinds of people the FDA has already approved a third dose for,” he said, referring to those with underlying health conditions.
But Israel only began vaccinating younger people a few weeks ago. Most are still within a window where rare risks like myocarditis could appear, Rubin noted.
He and other members of the committee said they wished they had more information about the safety of third doses in younger adults.
“We don’t have that right now, and I don’t think I would be comfortable giving it to a 16-year-old,” he said.
At the same time, the primary benefit for third doses would be in preventing severe disease, and overall, data from the United States and other countries show that two doses of the vaccines remain highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
Asked why Israel began to see more severe cases in fully vaccinated people, the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, a disease detective with the CDC, said it was probably due to a mix of factors including the fact that Israel defines severe cases a little differently.
In the United States, a severe case is generally a person who has to be hospitalized or who has died from the infection. In Israel, a person with a severe case is someone who has an elevated respiratory rate and someone who has a blood oxygen level less than 94%. In the United States, that kind of patient wouldn’t necessarily be hospitalized.
In the end, one of the two committee members who wanted full approval for Pfizer’s third doses said he was satisfied with the outcome.
Mark Sawyer, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at the University of California at San Diego, said he voted yes on the first question because he thought full approval was the best way to give doctors the flexibility to prescribe the shots to vulnerable individuals.
“I’m really glad we authorized a vaccine for a third dose, and I plan to go out and get my vaccine this afternoon,” Dr. Sawyer said, noting that he was at high risk as a health care provider.
This article was updated 9/19/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An expert panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions voted Sept. 17 against recommending third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for younger Americans.
But they didn’t kill the idea of booster shots completely.
In a dramatic, last-minute pivot, the 18 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend the FDA make boosters available for seniors and others at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, including health care workers.
The 16-2 vote was a rebuttal to Pfizer’s initial request. The company had asked the FDA to allow it to offer third doses to all Americans over the age of 16 at least six months after their second shot.
The company requested an amendment to the full approval the FDA granted in August. That is the typical way boosters are authorized in the U.S., but it requires a higher bar of evidence and more regulatory scrutiny than the agency had been able to give since Pfizer filed for the change just days after its vaccine was granted full approval.
The committee’s actions were also a rebuff to the Biden administration, which announced before the FDA approved them that boosters would be rolled out to the general public Sept. 20. The announcement triggered the resignations of two of the agency’s top vaccine reviewers, who both participated in the Sept. 17 meeting.
After initially voting against Pfizer’s request to amend its license, the committee then worked on the fly with FDA officials to craft a strategy that would allow third doses to be offered under an emergency use authorization (EUA).
An EUA requires a lower standard of evidence and is more specific. It will restrict third doses to a more defined population than a change to the license would. It will also require Pfizer to continue to monitor the safety of third doses as they begin to be administered.
“This should demonstrate to the public that the members of this committee are independent of the FDA and that we do, in fact, bring our voices to the table when we are asked to serve on this committee,” said Archana Chattergee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who is dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in Illinois.
The FDA doesn’t have to follow the committee’s recommendation, but almost certainly will, though regulators said they may still make some changes.
“We are not bound at FDA by your vote, we can tweak this,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Dr. Marks participated in the meeting and helped to draft the revised proposal.
If the FDA issues the recommended EUA, a council of independent advisors to the CDC will make specific recommendations about how the third doses should be given. After the CDC director weighs in, boosters will begin rolling out to the public.
Moderna submitted data to the FDA on Sept. 1 in support of adding a booster dose to its regimen. The agency has not yet scheduled a public review of that data.
The Biden administration is prepared to administer shots as soon as they get the green light, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said at a White House briefing earlier Sept. 17.
"This process is consistent with what we outlined in August where our goals were to stay ahead of the virus," Dr. Murthy said. "Our goal then and now is to protect the health and well-being of the public. As soon as the FDA and CDC complete their evaluations, we will be ready to move forward accordingly."
He added, "We've used this time since our August announcement to communicate and coordinate with pharmacy partners, nursing homes, states, and localities."
White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said vaccine supply is "in good shape for all Americans to get boosters as recommended."
Taking cues from Israel
In considering Pfizer’s original request, the committee overwhelmingly felt that they didn’t have enough information to say that the benefits of an additional dose of vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds would outweigh its risk. Teens have the highest risk of rare heart inflammation after vaccination, a side effect known as myocarditis. It is not known how the vaccines are causing these cases of heart swelling. Most who have been diagnosed with the condition have recovered, though some have needed hospital care.
Pfizer didn’t include 16- and 17-year-olds in its studies of boosters, which included about 300 people between the ages of 18 and 55. The company acknowledged that gap in its data but pointed to FDA guidance that said evidence from adults could be extrapolated to teens.
“We don’t know that much about risks,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, who is editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Much of the data on the potential benefits and harms of third Pfizer doses comes from Israel, which first began rolling out boosters to older adults in July.
In a highly anticipated presentation, Sharon Alroy-Preis, Israel’s director of public health services, joined the meeting to describe Israel’s experience with boosters.
Israel began to see a third surge of COVID-19 cases in December.
“This was after having two waves and two lockdowns,” Ms. Alroy-Preis said. By the third surge, she said, Israelis were tired.
“We decided on a lockdown, but the compliance of the public wasn’t as it was in the previous two waves,” she said.
Then the vaccine arrived. Israel started vaccinations as soon as the FDA approved it, and they quickly vaccinated a high percentage of their population, about 3 months faster than the rest of the world.
All vaccinations are reported and tracked by the Ministry of Health, so the country is able to keep close tabs on how well the shots are working.
As vaccines rolled out, cases fell dramatically. The pandemic seemed to be behind them. Delta arrived in March. By June, their cases were doubling every 10 days, despite about 80% of their most vulnerable adults being fully vaccinated, she said.
Most concerning was that about 60% of severe cases were breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals.
“We had to stop and figure out, was this a Delta issue,” she said. “Or was this a waning immunity issue.”
“We had some clue that it might not be the Delta variant, at least not alone,” she said.
People who had originally been first in line for the vaccines, seniors and health care workers, were having the highest rates of breakthrough infections. People further away from their second dose were more likely to get a breakthrough infection.
Ms. Alroy-Preis said that if they had not started booster doses in July, their hospitals would have been overwhelmed. They had projected that they would have 2,000 cases in the hospital each day.
Boosters have helped to flatten the curve, though they are still seeing a significant number of infections.
Data from Israel presented at the meeting show boosters are largely safe and effective at reducing severe outcomes in seniors. Israeli experience also showed that third doses, which generate very high levels of neutralizing antibodies—the first and fastest line of the body’s immune defense - -may also slow transmission of the virus.
Key differences in the U.S.
The benefit of slowing down the explosive spread of a highly contagious virus was tantalizing, but many members noted that circumstances in Israel are very different than in the United States. Israel went into its current Delta surge already having high levels of vaccination in its population. They also relied on the Pfizer vaccine almost exclusively for their campaign.
The United States used a different mix of vaccines – Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson -- and doesn’t have the same high level of vaccination coverage of its population.
In the United States, transmission is mainly being driven by unvaccinated people, Dr. Rubin noted.
“That really means the primary benefit is going to be in reducing disease,” he said, “And we know the people who are going to benefit from that … and those are the kinds of people the FDA has already approved a third dose for,” he said, referring to those with underlying health conditions.
But Israel only began vaccinating younger people a few weeks ago. Most are still within a window where rare risks like myocarditis could appear, Rubin noted.
He and other members of the committee said they wished they had more information about the safety of third doses in younger adults.
“We don’t have that right now, and I don’t think I would be comfortable giving it to a 16-year-old,” he said.
At the same time, the primary benefit for third doses would be in preventing severe disease, and overall, data from the United States and other countries show that two doses of the vaccines remain highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
Asked why Israel began to see more severe cases in fully vaccinated people, the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, a disease detective with the CDC, said it was probably due to a mix of factors including the fact that Israel defines severe cases a little differently.
In the United States, a severe case is generally a person who has to be hospitalized or who has died from the infection. In Israel, a person with a severe case is someone who has an elevated respiratory rate and someone who has a blood oxygen level less than 94%. In the United States, that kind of patient wouldn’t necessarily be hospitalized.
In the end, one of the two committee members who wanted full approval for Pfizer’s third doses said he was satisfied with the outcome.
Mark Sawyer, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at the University of California at San Diego, said he voted yes on the first question because he thought full approval was the best way to give doctors the flexibility to prescribe the shots to vulnerable individuals.
“I’m really glad we authorized a vaccine for a third dose, and I plan to go out and get my vaccine this afternoon,” Dr. Sawyer said, noting that he was at high risk as a health care provider.
This article was updated 9/19/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An expert panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions voted Sept. 17 against recommending third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for younger Americans.
But they didn’t kill the idea of booster shots completely.
In a dramatic, last-minute pivot, the 18 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee unanimously voted to recommend the FDA make boosters available for seniors and others at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, including health care workers.
The 16-2 vote was a rebuttal to Pfizer’s initial request. The company had asked the FDA to allow it to offer third doses to all Americans over the age of 16 at least six months after their second shot.
The company requested an amendment to the full approval the FDA granted in August. That is the typical way boosters are authorized in the U.S., but it requires a higher bar of evidence and more regulatory scrutiny than the agency had been able to give since Pfizer filed for the change just days after its vaccine was granted full approval.
The committee’s actions were also a rebuff to the Biden administration, which announced before the FDA approved them that boosters would be rolled out to the general public Sept. 20. The announcement triggered the resignations of two of the agency’s top vaccine reviewers, who both participated in the Sept. 17 meeting.
After initially voting against Pfizer’s request to amend its license, the committee then worked on the fly with FDA officials to craft a strategy that would allow third doses to be offered under an emergency use authorization (EUA).
An EUA requires a lower standard of evidence and is more specific. It will restrict third doses to a more defined population than a change to the license would. It will also require Pfizer to continue to monitor the safety of third doses as they begin to be administered.
“This should demonstrate to the public that the members of this committee are independent of the FDA and that we do, in fact, bring our voices to the table when we are asked to serve on this committee,” said Archana Chattergee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who is dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in Illinois.
The FDA doesn’t have to follow the committee’s recommendation, but almost certainly will, though regulators said they may still make some changes.
“We are not bound at FDA by your vote, we can tweak this,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. Dr. Marks participated in the meeting and helped to draft the revised proposal.
If the FDA issues the recommended EUA, a council of independent advisors to the CDC will make specific recommendations about how the third doses should be given. After the CDC director weighs in, boosters will begin rolling out to the public.
Moderna submitted data to the FDA on Sept. 1 in support of adding a booster dose to its regimen. The agency has not yet scheduled a public review of that data.
The Biden administration is prepared to administer shots as soon as they get the green light, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, said at a White House briefing earlier Sept. 17.
"This process is consistent with what we outlined in August where our goals were to stay ahead of the virus," Dr. Murthy said. "Our goal then and now is to protect the health and well-being of the public. As soon as the FDA and CDC complete their evaluations, we will be ready to move forward accordingly."
He added, "We've used this time since our August announcement to communicate and coordinate with pharmacy partners, nursing homes, states, and localities."
White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said vaccine supply is "in good shape for all Americans to get boosters as recommended."
Taking cues from Israel
In considering Pfizer’s original request, the committee overwhelmingly felt that they didn’t have enough information to say that the benefits of an additional dose of vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds would outweigh its risk. Teens have the highest risk of rare heart inflammation after vaccination, a side effect known as myocarditis. It is not known how the vaccines are causing these cases of heart swelling. Most who have been diagnosed with the condition have recovered, though some have needed hospital care.
Pfizer didn’t include 16- and 17-year-olds in its studies of boosters, which included about 300 people between the ages of 18 and 55. The company acknowledged that gap in its data but pointed to FDA guidance that said evidence from adults could be extrapolated to teens.
“We don’t know that much about risks,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, who is editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Much of the data on the potential benefits and harms of third Pfizer doses comes from Israel, which first began rolling out boosters to older adults in July.
In a highly anticipated presentation, Sharon Alroy-Preis, Israel’s director of public health services, joined the meeting to describe Israel’s experience with boosters.
Israel began to see a third surge of COVID-19 cases in December.
“This was after having two waves and two lockdowns,” Ms. Alroy-Preis said. By the third surge, she said, Israelis were tired.
“We decided on a lockdown, but the compliance of the public wasn’t as it was in the previous two waves,” she said.
Then the vaccine arrived. Israel started vaccinations as soon as the FDA approved it, and they quickly vaccinated a high percentage of their population, about 3 months faster than the rest of the world.
All vaccinations are reported and tracked by the Ministry of Health, so the country is able to keep close tabs on how well the shots are working.
As vaccines rolled out, cases fell dramatically. The pandemic seemed to be behind them. Delta arrived in March. By June, their cases were doubling every 10 days, despite about 80% of their most vulnerable adults being fully vaccinated, she said.
Most concerning was that about 60% of severe cases were breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals.
“We had to stop and figure out, was this a Delta issue,” she said. “Or was this a waning immunity issue.”
“We had some clue that it might not be the Delta variant, at least not alone,” she said.
People who had originally been first in line for the vaccines, seniors and health care workers, were having the highest rates of breakthrough infections. People further away from their second dose were more likely to get a breakthrough infection.
Ms. Alroy-Preis said that if they had not started booster doses in July, their hospitals would have been overwhelmed. They had projected that they would have 2,000 cases in the hospital each day.
Boosters have helped to flatten the curve, though they are still seeing a significant number of infections.
Data from Israel presented at the meeting show boosters are largely safe and effective at reducing severe outcomes in seniors. Israeli experience also showed that third doses, which generate very high levels of neutralizing antibodies—the first and fastest line of the body’s immune defense - -may also slow transmission of the virus.
Key differences in the U.S.
The benefit of slowing down the explosive spread of a highly contagious virus was tantalizing, but many members noted that circumstances in Israel are very different than in the United States. Israel went into its current Delta surge already having high levels of vaccination in its population. They also relied on the Pfizer vaccine almost exclusively for their campaign.
The United States used a different mix of vaccines – Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson -- and doesn’t have the same high level of vaccination coverage of its population.
In the United States, transmission is mainly being driven by unvaccinated people, Dr. Rubin noted.
“That really means the primary benefit is going to be in reducing disease,” he said, “And we know the people who are going to benefit from that … and those are the kinds of people the FDA has already approved a third dose for,” he said, referring to those with underlying health conditions.
But Israel only began vaccinating younger people a few weeks ago. Most are still within a window where rare risks like myocarditis could appear, Rubin noted.
He and other members of the committee said they wished they had more information about the safety of third doses in younger adults.
“We don’t have that right now, and I don’t think I would be comfortable giving it to a 16-year-old,” he said.
At the same time, the primary benefit for third doses would be in preventing severe disease, and overall, data from the United States and other countries show that two doses of the vaccines remain highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
Asked why Israel began to see more severe cases in fully vaccinated people, the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, a disease detective with the CDC, said it was probably due to a mix of factors including the fact that Israel defines severe cases a little differently.
In the United States, a severe case is generally a person who has to be hospitalized or who has died from the infection. In Israel, a person with a severe case is someone who has an elevated respiratory rate and someone who has a blood oxygen level less than 94%. In the United States, that kind of patient wouldn’t necessarily be hospitalized.
In the end, one of the two committee members who wanted full approval for Pfizer’s third doses said he was satisfied with the outcome.
Mark Sawyer, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at the University of California at San Diego, said he voted yes on the first question because he thought full approval was the best way to give doctors the flexibility to prescribe the shots to vulnerable individuals.
“I’m really glad we authorized a vaccine for a third dose, and I plan to go out and get my vaccine this afternoon,” Dr. Sawyer said, noting that he was at high risk as a health care provider.
This article was updated 9/19/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates
Plus, how things differ in a COVID-19 cardiac arrest case
Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates1
1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.
2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.
3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.
4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.
5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.
6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO2 is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO2 monitor attached.
7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.
8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.
9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.
10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.
Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case2
1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.
2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.
3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.
4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.
5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.3
Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
References
1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.
2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.
3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.
Plus, how things differ in a COVID-19 cardiac arrest case
Plus, how things differ in a COVID-19 cardiac arrest case
Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates1
1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.
2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.
3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.
4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.
5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.
6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO2 is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO2 monitor attached.
7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.
8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.
9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.
10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.
Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case2
1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.
2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.
3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.
4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.
5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.3
Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
References
1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.
2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.
3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.
Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates1
1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.
2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.
3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.
4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.
5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.
6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO2 is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO2 monitor attached.
7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.
8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.
9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.
10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.
Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case2
1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.
2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.
3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.
4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.
5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.3
Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
References
1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.
2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.
3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.
‘Empathy fatigue’ in clinicians rises with latest COVID-19 surge
Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.
It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.
Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.
“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”
Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.
Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.
Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.
Paradoxical choices
Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.
To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.
Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.
When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.
Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.
These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.
“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.
Self-preservation vs. empathy
Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.
Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.
One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.
Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.
The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.
“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
How to cope
To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”
She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.
It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.
Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.
before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.
“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.
“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.
It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.
Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.
“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”
Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.
Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.
Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.
Paradoxical choices
Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.
To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.
Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.
When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.
Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.
These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.
“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.
Self-preservation vs. empathy
Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.
Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.
One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.
Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.
The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.
“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
How to cope
To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”
She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.
It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.
Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.
before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.
“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.
“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.
It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.
Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.
“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”
Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.
Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.
Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.
Paradoxical choices
Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.
To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.
Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.
When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.
Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.
These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.
“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.
Self-preservation vs. empathy
Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.
Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.
One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.
Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.
The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.
“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
How to cope
To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”
She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.
It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.
Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.
before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.
“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.
“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How could this happen? Judge forces doctors to give ivermectin
The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?
This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.1 So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.3
Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.
Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.4 That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.5 Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.
Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.
Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.
But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,6 it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.
One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.
2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.
3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.
4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.
5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.
6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.
The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?
This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.1 So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.3
Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.
Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.4 That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.5 Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.
Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.
Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.
But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,6 it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.
One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.
2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.
3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.
4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.
5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.
6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.
The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?
This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.1 So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.3
Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.
Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.4 That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.5 Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.
Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.
Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.
But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,6 it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.
One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.
2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.
3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.
4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.
5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.
6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.
Poor lung function linked to risk for sudden cardiac death
Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.
Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV1 is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.
“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.
Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.
“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
Fatal vs. nonfatal events
It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.
To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.
The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.
Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.
Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV1 was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV1 was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).
The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).
“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.
The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.
Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV1 is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.
“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.
Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.
“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
Fatal vs. nonfatal events
It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.
To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.
The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.
Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.
Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV1 was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV1 was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).
The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).
“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.
The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.
Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV1 is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.
“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.
Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.
“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
Fatal vs. nonfatal events
It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.
To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.
The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.
Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.
Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV1 was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV1 was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).
The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).
“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.
The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Moderna vaccine data ‘support’ booster shot after 8 months
Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.
The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.
according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.
The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).
In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).
The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020
The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.
“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.
An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.
There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.
The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.
The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.
according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.
The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).
In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).
The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020
The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.
“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.
An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.
There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.
The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.
The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.
according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.
The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).
In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).
The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020
The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.
“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.
An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.
There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.
The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccine preprint study prompts Twitter outrage
A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.
The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.
The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.
“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”
“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”
“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.
Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”
Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”
Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.”
Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.
“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.”
“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”
Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
Vaccine risks versus COVID harm
The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.
Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.
The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.
The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.
After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.
Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.
The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.
The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.
The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
Paper rejected by journals
Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.
She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.
They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.
The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”
Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.
Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”
Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.
Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”
But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”
In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
Measured support
Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.
“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.
“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.
Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.
In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”
Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”
In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.
“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.
However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.
Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”
Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”
He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.
The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.
The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.
“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”
“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”
“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.
Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”
Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”
Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.”
Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.
“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.”
“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”
Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
Vaccine risks versus COVID harm
The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.
Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.
The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.
The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.
After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.
Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.
The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.
The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.
The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
Paper rejected by journals
Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.
She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.
They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.
The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”
Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.
Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”
Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.
Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”
But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”
In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
Measured support
Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.
“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.
“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.
Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.
In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”
Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”
In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.
“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.
However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.
Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”
Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”
He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.
The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.
The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.
“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”
“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”
“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.
Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”
Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”
Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.”
Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.
“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.”
“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”
Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
Vaccine risks versus COVID harm
The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.
Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.
The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.
The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.
After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.
Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.
The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.
The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.
The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
Paper rejected by journals
Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.
She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.
They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.
The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”
Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.
Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”
Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.
Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”
But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”
In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
Measured support
Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.
“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.
“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.
Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.
In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”
Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”
In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”
Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.
“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.
However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.
Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”
Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”
He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Candida auris transmission can be contained in postacute care settings
A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).
Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”
Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.
The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.
Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”
The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.
The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.
Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.
Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”
Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”
In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”
She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”
While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”
Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).
Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”
Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.
The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.
Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”
The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.
The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.
Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.
Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”
Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”
In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”
She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”
While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”
Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).
Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”
Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.
The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.
Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”
The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.
The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.
Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.
Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”
Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”
In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”
She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”
While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”
Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.