News from the FDA/CDC

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

[email protected]

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

[email protected]

Just over one-third of children in the United States get less sleep than recommended, with higher rates occurring among several racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among children aged 4 months to 17 years, 34.9% got less than the recommended amount of sleep for their age and just 33.9% had a regular bedtime, Anne G. Wheaton, PhD, and Angelika H. Claussen, PhD, said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Unlike previous reports, this analysis showed that adolescents were less likely than infants to have short sleep duration, 31.2% vs. 40.3%. These latest data are based on the 2016-2018 editions of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and the “difference might be explained by NSCH’s reliance on parent report rather than self-report with Youth Risk Behavior Surveys,” they suggested.

Black children had the highest prevalence of any group included in the study, as parents reported that 50.8% of all ages were not getting the recommended amount of sleep, compared with 39.1% among Hispanics, 34.6% for other races, and 28.8% for Whites. The figure for Black infants was 64.2%, almost double the prevalence for White infants (32.9%), said Dr. Wheaton and Dr. Claussen of the CDC.

Short sleep duration also was more common in children from lower-income families and among those with less educated parents. Geography had an effect as well, with prevalence “highest in the Southeast, similar to geographic variation in adequate sleep observed for adults,” they noted.

Previous research has shown that “sleep disparity was associated with various social determinants of health (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, and perceived racism), which can increase chronic and acute stress and result in environmental and psychological factors that negatively affect sleep duration and can compound long-term health risks,” the investigators wrote.

Short sleep duration by age group was defined as less the following amounts: Twelve hours for infants (4-11 months), 11 hours for children aged 1-2 years, 10 hours for children aged 3-5 years, 9 hours for children aged 6-12, and 8 hours for adolescents (13-17 years), they explained. Responses for the survey’s sleep-duration question totaled 99,842 for the 3 years included.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

Federal efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of over-the-counter sunscreens took a step forward today with the release of two orders aimed at updating regulatory requirements for most sunscreen products in the United States.

“We see it as a key public health priority and our regulatory obligation to make sure that marketed sunscreen products offer protection from the sun’s effects and that they deliver on those promises to consumers,” Theresa Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said during a media briefing.

When the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed in 2020, the FDA was in the middle of amending a sunscreen monograph through the previous rule-making process, and the agency had issued a proposed rule for sunscreens in February of 2019. The CARES Act provided the FDA with new authority related to OTC drugs including sunscreens.

It also established a deemed final order for sunscreens, which set the current requirements for OTC sunscreen products marketed without an application. The deemed final order, released on Sept. 24, “essentially preserves the pre-CARES Act status quo marketing conditions for these sunscreens,” Dr. Michele explained. “Before the CARES Act was passed, sunscreens were marketed according to nearly identical terms that were described in an FDA enforcement discretion policy. For this reason, the agency believes that most sunscreens on the market today are already in compliance with this order.”

The CARES Act also required the FDA to issue a proposed order by Sept. 27 to amend and revise the deemed final order. Dr. Michele described the proposed order, which was released on Sept. 24, as “a vehicle to effectively transition our ongoing consideration of the appropriate requirements for OTC sunscreens marketed without approved applications from the previous rule-making process to this new order process. The provisions in today’s proposed order are therefore substantively the same as those described in the FDA’s 2019 proposed rule on sunscreens. With this proposed order, we’re proposing new requirements to improve the quality, safety, and efficacy of sunscreens that Americans use every day.”

The order proposes to update the generally recognized as safe (GRASE) status for the 16 active ingredients listed in the deemed final order. It also proposes that dosage forms that are GRASE for use as sunscreens include oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks, and proposes GRASE status for spray sunscreens, subject to testing and labeling requirements.

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized that photoprotection “is important for everyone, regardless of skin tone,” in an interview. “Broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of 15 and higher play an important role in this. This should not be lost amidst the proposed order.”

Changes between the deemed and proposed order that he highlighted include a maximum SPF of 60+ (though up to 80 might be allowed) and that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are GRASE. “The FDA did not say that nanoparticle formulations of these, which are easier to use, are not GRASE; they are asking for community input,” he said.

Other changes between the deemed and proposed order are that PABA and trolamine salicylate are not GRASE and that broad-spectrum testing will be mandatory. In addition, Dr. Friedman said, “sprays will be considered for GRASE so long as properly tested, labeling should be clearer (and a warning will be applied to those sunscreens not shown to prevent all the bad stuff with UVR [ultraviolet radiation]), and bug spray–sunscreen combos are a no-go.”

The FDA will consider comments on the proposed order submitted during a 45-day public comment period before issuing a revised final order. “As part of this process, we’ll consider all timely comments submitted both in response to the February 2019 proposed rule and to the current proposed order,” Dr. Michele said.

Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or advisor to numerous pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Abbvie, LRP, Janssen, Incyte, and Brickell Biotech, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Almirall, Incyte, Galderma, and Janssen.

[email protected]

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The Food and Drug Administration today gave the nod to topical ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis ages 12 years and older, making it the first topical JAK inhibitor approved for AD – and the first JAK inhibitor approved for this indication – in the United States.

The approval is limited to patients whose AD is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable.

“Approval of topical ruxolitinib fills a major gap in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a safe, effective, and tolerable non-steroidal topical therapy,” Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Oregon Health & Science University Dermatology Clinical Research Center, Portland, told this news organization. “This approval will allow for long-term treatment without the concern of steroid side effects. From earlier studies, ruxolitinib cream appears to be as effective as a medium-potency topical steroid. These efficacy levels and low incidence of burning will be a welcome addition to our current nonsteroidal therapies.”

The drug’s approval was based on results from two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 years and older with AD: TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2. In these studies, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. In the trials, patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The 1.5% concentration was approved by the FDA.

A study first published in May of 2021 found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).

More key findings from TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 are scheduled to be presented during the upcoming European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology meeting Sept. 29-Oct. 2, but during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Symposium on June 13, Kim Papp, MD, PhD, presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1, to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

Dr. Papp and his colleagues observed that the most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis. According to Incyte’s press release, the most common treatment-emergent adverse reactions in patients treated with ruxolitinib during clinical trials were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, eosinophil count increases, urticaria, folliculitis, tonsillitis, and rhinorrhea. The labeling includes boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, seen with oral JAK inhibitors for inflammatory conditions.

Incyte will market ruxolitinib under the trade name Opzelura.

Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, AbbVie, and Pfizer.

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Another nonsteroidal topical medication approved for atopic dermatitis (AD)? Thank goodness. Topical ruxolitinib 1.5% cream twice daily for mild to moderate AD demonstrated excellent efficacy vs. placebo in duplicative trials (53.8/51.3% vs. 15.1%/7.6%; P < .001), with a reassuring safety profile. Application site reactions were uncommon, though past experience with other new nonsteroidal agents suggests judgment be reserved on that score. More compelling was the fact that no patients discontinued therapy in the 1.5% arm, and adverse events were mild and self-limited such as nasopharyngitis and diarrhea. This stands in contradistinction to the boxed warning attached to JAK inhibitors (topical and systemic) against a daunting list of destructive possibilities: malignancy, infection, cardiovascular disease, and blood clots. None of these things was seen in these topical ruxolitinib trials.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

Despite a decrease in reported adverse events after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, among parents of unvaccinated adolescents, concerns about the vaccine’s safety rose 80% from 2015 to 2018, according to research published September 17 in JAMA Network Open.

Since its approval in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uptake of the HPV vaccine has consistently lagged behind that of other routine vaccinations. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released September 3, 58.6% of adolescents were considered up to date with their HPV vaccinations in 2020.

Trials prior to the vaccine’s FDA approval as well as an abundance of clinical and observational evidence after it hit the market demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy and safety, said lead author Kalyani Sonawane, PhD, an assistant professor of management, policy, and community health at the UTHealth School of Public Health, in Houston, Texas, in an interview. Still, recent research suggests that safety concerns are a main reason why parents are hesitant to have their children vaccinated, she noted.

In the study, Dr. Sonawane and colleagues analyzed data from National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) from 2015 through 2018. NIS-Teen is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey conducted annually by the CDC to monitor routine vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13 to 17. The researchers identified 39,364 adolescents who had not received any HPV shots and reviewed the caregivers’ reasons for vaccine hesitancy. The research team also reviewed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They identified 16,621 reports that listed the HPV vaccine from 2015 through 2018.

The top five reasons caregivers cited for avoiding the HPV vaccine were the following:

• not needed or necessary
• safety concerns
• not recommended
• lack of knowledge
• not sexually active

Of these, safety concerns were the only factor that increased during the study period. They increased from 13.0% in 2015 to 23.4% in 2018. Concerns over vaccine safety rose in 30 states, with increases of over 200% in California, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Mississippi.

The proportion of unvaccinated adolescents whose caregivers thought the HPV vaccine was not needed or necessary remained steady at around 25%. Those whose caregivers listed “not recommended,” “lack of knowledge,” and “not sexually active” as reasons for avoiding vaccination decreased over the study period.

The reporting rate for adverse events following HPV vaccination decreased from 44.7 per 100,000 doses in 2015 to 29.4 per 100,000 doses in 2018. Of the reported 16,621 adverse events following HPV vaccination that occurred over the study period, 4.6% were serious, resulting in hospitalizations, disability, life-threatening events, or death. From 2015 through 2018, reporting rates for serious adverse events remained level at around 0.3 events per 100,000 doses.

This mismatch between increasing vaccine safety concerns and decreasing adverse events suggests that disinformation may be driving these concerns more than scientific fact, Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in head and neck surgery and communication sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization. He co-wrote an invited commentary on the study and was not involved with the research. Although there have always been people who are hesitant to receive vaccinations, he said, social media and the internet have undoubtedly played a role in spreading concern.

Dr. Sonawane agreed. Online, “there are a lot of antivaccine groups that are making unwarranted claims about the vaccine’s safety,” such as that the HPV vaccine causes autism or fertility problems in women, she said. “We believe that this growing antivaccine movement in the U.S. and across the globe – which the World Health Organization has declared as one of the biggest threats right now – is also contributing to safety concerns among U.S. parents, particularly HPV vaccine safety.”

Although the study did not address strategies to combat this misinformation, Dr. Osazuwa-Peters said clinicians need to improve their communication with parents and patients. One way to do that, he said, is by bolstering an online presence and by countering vaccine disinformation with evidence-based responses on the internet. Most people get their medical information online. “Many people are just afraid because they don’t trust the messages coming from health care,” he said. “So, we need to a better job of not just providing the facts but providing the facts in a way that the end users can understand and appreciate.”

Dr. Sonawane and Dr. Osazuwa-Peters report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite a decrease in reported adverse events after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, among parents of unvaccinated adolescents, concerns about the vaccine’s safety rose 80% from 2015 to 2018, according to research published September 17 in JAMA Network Open.

Since its approval in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uptake of the HPV vaccine has consistently lagged behind that of other routine vaccinations. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released September 3, 58.6% of adolescents were considered up to date with their HPV vaccinations in 2020.

Trials prior to the vaccine’s FDA approval as well as an abundance of clinical and observational evidence after it hit the market demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy and safety, said lead author Kalyani Sonawane, PhD, an assistant professor of management, policy, and community health at the UTHealth School of Public Health, in Houston, Texas, in an interview. Still, recent research suggests that safety concerns are a main reason why parents are hesitant to have their children vaccinated, she noted.

In the study, Dr. Sonawane and colleagues analyzed data from National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) from 2015 through 2018. NIS-Teen is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey conducted annually by the CDC to monitor routine vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13 to 17. The researchers identified 39,364 adolescents who had not received any HPV shots and reviewed the caregivers’ reasons for vaccine hesitancy. The research team also reviewed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They identified 16,621 reports that listed the HPV vaccine from 2015 through 2018.

The top five reasons caregivers cited for avoiding the HPV vaccine were the following:

• not needed or necessary
• safety concerns
• not recommended
• lack of knowledge
• not sexually active

Of these, safety concerns were the only factor that increased during the study period. They increased from 13.0% in 2015 to 23.4% in 2018. Concerns over vaccine safety rose in 30 states, with increases of over 200% in California, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Mississippi.

The proportion of unvaccinated adolescents whose caregivers thought the HPV vaccine was not needed or necessary remained steady at around 25%. Those whose caregivers listed “not recommended,” “lack of knowledge,” and “not sexually active” as reasons for avoiding vaccination decreased over the study period.

The reporting rate for adverse events following HPV vaccination decreased from 44.7 per 100,000 doses in 2015 to 29.4 per 100,000 doses in 2018. Of the reported 16,621 adverse events following HPV vaccination that occurred over the study period, 4.6% were serious, resulting in hospitalizations, disability, life-threatening events, or death. From 2015 through 2018, reporting rates for serious adverse events remained level at around 0.3 events per 100,000 doses.

This mismatch between increasing vaccine safety concerns and decreasing adverse events suggests that disinformation may be driving these concerns more than scientific fact, Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in head and neck surgery and communication sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization. He co-wrote an invited commentary on the study and was not involved with the research. Although there have always been people who are hesitant to receive vaccinations, he said, social media and the internet have undoubtedly played a role in spreading concern.

Dr. Sonawane agreed. Online, “there are a lot of antivaccine groups that are making unwarranted claims about the vaccine’s safety,” such as that the HPV vaccine causes autism or fertility problems in women, she said. “We believe that this growing antivaccine movement in the U.S. and across the globe – which the World Health Organization has declared as one of the biggest threats right now – is also contributing to safety concerns among U.S. parents, particularly HPV vaccine safety.”

Although the study did not address strategies to combat this misinformation, Dr. Osazuwa-Peters said clinicians need to improve their communication with parents and patients. One way to do that, he said, is by bolstering an online presence and by countering vaccine disinformation with evidence-based responses on the internet. Most people get their medical information online. “Many people are just afraid because they don’t trust the messages coming from health care,” he said. “So, we need to a better job of not just providing the facts but providing the facts in a way that the end users can understand and appreciate.”

Dr. Sonawane and Dr. Osazuwa-Peters report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite a decrease in reported adverse events after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, among parents of unvaccinated adolescents, concerns about the vaccine’s safety rose 80% from 2015 to 2018, according to research published September 17 in JAMA Network Open.

Since its approval in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, uptake of the HPV vaccine has consistently lagged behind that of other routine vaccinations. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released September 3, 58.6% of adolescents were considered up to date with their HPV vaccinations in 2020.

Trials prior to the vaccine’s FDA approval as well as an abundance of clinical and observational evidence after it hit the market demonstrate the vaccine’s efficacy and safety, said lead author Kalyani Sonawane, PhD, an assistant professor of management, policy, and community health at the UTHealth School of Public Health, in Houston, Texas, in an interview. Still, recent research suggests that safety concerns are a main reason why parents are hesitant to have their children vaccinated, she noted.

In the study, Dr. Sonawane and colleagues analyzed data from National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) from 2015 through 2018. NIS-Teen is a random-digit-dialed telephone survey conducted annually by the CDC to monitor routine vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13 to 17. The researchers identified 39,364 adolescents who had not received any HPV shots and reviewed the caregivers’ reasons for vaccine hesitancy. The research team also reviewed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They identified 16,621 reports that listed the HPV vaccine from 2015 through 2018.

The top five reasons caregivers cited for avoiding the HPV vaccine were the following:

• not needed or necessary
• safety concerns
• not recommended
• lack of knowledge
• not sexually active

Of these, safety concerns were the only factor that increased during the study period. They increased from 13.0% in 2015 to 23.4% in 2018. Concerns over vaccine safety rose in 30 states, with increases of over 200% in California, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Mississippi.

The proportion of unvaccinated adolescents whose caregivers thought the HPV vaccine was not needed or necessary remained steady at around 25%. Those whose caregivers listed “not recommended,” “lack of knowledge,” and “not sexually active” as reasons for avoiding vaccination decreased over the study period.

The reporting rate for adverse events following HPV vaccination decreased from 44.7 per 100,000 doses in 2015 to 29.4 per 100,000 doses in 2018. Of the reported 16,621 adverse events following HPV vaccination that occurred over the study period, 4.6% were serious, resulting in hospitalizations, disability, life-threatening events, or death. From 2015 through 2018, reporting rates for serious adverse events remained level at around 0.3 events per 100,000 doses.

This mismatch between increasing vaccine safety concerns and decreasing adverse events suggests that disinformation may be driving these concerns more than scientific fact, Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, PhD, MPH, an assistant professor in head and neck surgery and communication sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization. He co-wrote an invited commentary on the study and was not involved with the research. Although there have always been people who are hesitant to receive vaccinations, he said, social media and the internet have undoubtedly played a role in spreading concern.

Dr. Sonawane agreed. Online, “there are a lot of antivaccine groups that are making unwarranted claims about the vaccine’s safety,” such as that the HPV vaccine causes autism or fertility problems in women, she said. “We believe that this growing antivaccine movement in the U.S. and across the globe – which the World Health Organization has declared as one of the biggest threats right now – is also contributing to safety concerns among U.S. parents, particularly HPV vaccine safety.”

Although the study did not address strategies to combat this misinformation, Dr. Osazuwa-Peters said clinicians need to improve their communication with parents and patients. One way to do that, he said, is by bolstering an online presence and by countering vaccine disinformation with evidence-based responses on the internet. Most people get their medical information online. “Many people are just afraid because they don’t trust the messages coming from health care,” he said. “So, we need to a better job of not just providing the facts but providing the facts in a way that the end users can understand and appreciate.”

Dr. Sonawane and Dr. Osazuwa-Peters report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, 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.

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, 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.

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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