Vaccines

In a new risk-assessment document, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control summarizes what we currently know about monkeypox and recommends that European countries focus on the identification and management of the disease as well as contract tracing and prompt reporting of new cases of the virus.

Recent developments

From May 15 to May 23, in eight European Union member states (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) a total of 85 cases of monkeypox were reported; they were acquired through autochthonous transmission. Current diagnosed cases of monkeypox have mainly been recorded in men who have sexual relations with other men, suggesting that transmission may occur during sexual intercourse, through infectious material coming into contact with mucosa or damaged skin, or via large respiratory droplets during prolonged face-to-face contact.

Andrea Ammon, MD, director of the ECDC, stated that “most current cases have presented with mild symptoms of the disease, and for the general population, the chance of diffusion is very low. However, the likelihood of a further spread of the virus through close contact, for example during sexual activities among people with multiple sexual partners, is considerably increased.”

Stella Kyriakides, European commissioner for health and food safety, added, “I am worried about the increase of cases of monkeypox in the EU and worldwide. We are currently monitoring the situation and, although, at the moment, the probability of it spreading to the general population is low, the situation is evolving. We should all remain alert, making sure that contact tracing and a sufficient diagnostic capacity are in place and guarantee that vaccines and antiviral drugs are available, as well as sufficient personal protective equipment [PPE] for health care professionals.”
 

Routes of transmission

Monkeypox is not easily spread among people. Person-to-person transmission occurs through close contact with infectious material, coming from skin lesions of an infected person, through air droplets in the case of prolonged face-to-face contact, and through fomites. So far, diagnosed cases suggest that transmission can occur through sexual intercourse.

The incubation period is 5-21 days, and patients are symptomatic for 2-4 weeks.

According to the ECDC, the likelihood of this infection spreading is increased among people who have more than one sexual partner. Although most current cases present with mild symptoms, monkeypox can cause severe disease in some groups (such as young children, pregnant women, and immunosuppressed people). However, the probability of severe disease cannot yet be estimated precisely.

The overall risk is considered moderate for people who have multiple sexual partners and low for the general population.
 

Clinical course

The disease initially presents with fever, myalgia, fatigue, and headache. Within 3 days of the onset of the prodromal symptoms, a centrifugal maculopapular rash appears on the site of primary infection and rapidly spreads to other parts of the body. The palms of the hands and bottoms of the feet are involved in cases where the rash has spread, which is a characteristic of the disease. Usually within 12 days, the lesions progress, simultaneously changing from macules to papules, blisters, pustules, and scabs before falling off. The lesions may have a central depression and be extremely itchy.

If the patient scratches them, a secondary bacterial infection may take hold (for which treatment with oral antihistamines is indicated). Lesions may also be present in the oral or ocular mucous membrane. Either before or at the same time as onset of the rash, patients may experience swelling of the lymph nodes, which usually is not seen with smallpox or chickenpox.

The onset of the rash is considered the start of the infectious period; however, people with prodromal symptoms may also transmit the virus.

Most cases in people present with mild or moderate symptoms. Complications seen in endemic countries include encephalitis, secondary bacterial skin infections, dehydration, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and pneumonia. The death rate ranges from 0% to 11% in endemic areas, with fatalities from the disease mostly occurring in younger children.

There is not a lot of information available on the disease in immunosuppressed individuals. In the 2017 Nigerian epidemic, patients with a concomitant HIV infection presented with more severe disease, with a greater number of skin lesions and genital ulcers, compared with HIV-negative individuals. No deaths were reported among seropositive patients. The main sequelae from the disease are usually disfiguring scars and permanent corneal lesions.
 

Treatment

No smallpox vaccines are authorized for use against monkeypox, however the third-generation smallpox vaccine Imvanex (Modified Vaccinia Ankara) has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the EU market against smallpox and has demonstrated to provide protection in primates.

Old-generation smallpox vaccines have significant side effects, are no longer authorized, and should no longer be used. It is also important to note the lack of safety data for the use of Imvanex in immunocompromised people.

For this reason, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups have been asked to develop specific guidelines for vaccination in close contacts of patients with monkeypox. The use of a smallpox vaccine for preexposure prophylaxis cannot be considered now, when taking into account the risk-benefit ratio.

In regard to treatment, tecovirimat is the only antiviral drug with an EMA-authorized indication for orthopoxvirus infection.

Brincidofovir is not authorized in the EU but has been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, availability on the European market is limited somewhat by the number of doses.

According to the ECDC, health care authorities should provide information about which groups should have priority access to treatment.

The use of antivirals for postexposure prophylaxis should be investigated further. Cidofovir is active in vitro for smallpox but has a pronounced nephrotoxicity profile that makes it unsuitable for first-line treatment.

The ECDC document also proposes an interim case definition for epidemiologic reporting. Further indications will also be provided for the management of monkeypox cases and close contacts. Those infected should remain in isolation until the scabs have fallen off and should, above all, avoid close contact with at-risk or immunosuppressed people as well as pets.

Most infected people can remain at home with supportive care.
 

Prevention

Close contacts for cases of monkeypox should monitor the development of their symptoms until 21 days have passed from their most recent exposure to the virus.

Health care workers should wear appropriate PPE (gloves, water-resistant gowns, FFP2 masks) during screening for suspected cases or when working with confirmed cases. Laboratory staff should also take precautions to avoid exposure in the workplace.

Close contacts of an infected person should not donate blood, organs, or bone marrow for at least 21 days from the last day of exposure.

Finally, the ECDC recommends increasing proactive communication of the risks to increase awareness and provide updates and indications to individuals who are at a greater risk, as well as to the general public. These messages should highlight that monkeypox is spread through close person-to-person contact, especially within the family unit, and also potentially through sexual intercourse. A balance, however, should be maintained between informing the individuals who are at greater risk and communicating that the virus is not easily spread and that the risk for the general population is low.
 

Human-to-animal transmission

A potential risk for human-to-animal transmission exists in Europe; therefore, a close collaboration is required between human and veterinary health care authorities, working together to manage domestic animals exposed to the virus and to prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife. To date, the European Food Safety Authority is not aware of any reports of animal infections (domestic or wild) within the EU.

There are still many unknown factors about this outbreak. The ECDC continues to closely monitor any developments and will update the risk assessment as soon as new data and information become available.

If human-to-animal transmission occurs and the virus spreads among animal populations, there is a risk that the disease could become an endemic in Europe. Therefore, human and veterinary health care authorities should work together closely to manage cases of domestic animals exposed to the virus and prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

In a new risk-assessment document, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control summarizes what we currently know about monkeypox and recommends that European countries focus on the identification and management of the disease as well as contract tracing and prompt reporting of new cases of the virus.

Recent developments

From May 15 to May 23, in eight European Union member states (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) a total of 85 cases of monkeypox were reported; they were acquired through autochthonous transmission. Current diagnosed cases of monkeypox have mainly been recorded in men who have sexual relations with other men, suggesting that transmission may occur during sexual intercourse, through infectious material coming into contact with mucosa or damaged skin, or via large respiratory droplets during prolonged face-to-face contact.

Andrea Ammon, MD, director of the ECDC, stated that “most current cases have presented with mild symptoms of the disease, and for the general population, the chance of diffusion is very low. However, the likelihood of a further spread of the virus through close contact, for example during sexual activities among people with multiple sexual partners, is considerably increased.”

Stella Kyriakides, European commissioner for health and food safety, added, “I am worried about the increase of cases of monkeypox in the EU and worldwide. We are currently monitoring the situation and, although, at the moment, the probability of it spreading to the general population is low, the situation is evolving. We should all remain alert, making sure that contact tracing and a sufficient diagnostic capacity are in place and guarantee that vaccines and antiviral drugs are available, as well as sufficient personal protective equipment [PPE] for health care professionals.”
 

Routes of transmission

Monkeypox is not easily spread among people. Person-to-person transmission occurs through close contact with infectious material, coming from skin lesions of an infected person, through air droplets in the case of prolonged face-to-face contact, and through fomites. So far, diagnosed cases suggest that transmission can occur through sexual intercourse.

The incubation period is 5-21 days, and patients are symptomatic for 2-4 weeks.

According to the ECDC, the likelihood of this infection spreading is increased among people who have more than one sexual partner. Although most current cases present with mild symptoms, monkeypox can cause severe disease in some groups (such as young children, pregnant women, and immunosuppressed people). However, the probability of severe disease cannot yet be estimated precisely.

The overall risk is considered moderate for people who have multiple sexual partners and low for the general population.
 

Clinical course

The disease initially presents with fever, myalgia, fatigue, and headache. Within 3 days of the onset of the prodromal symptoms, a centrifugal maculopapular rash appears on the site of primary infection and rapidly spreads to other parts of the body. The palms of the hands and bottoms of the feet are involved in cases where the rash has spread, which is a characteristic of the disease. Usually within 12 days, the lesions progress, simultaneously changing from macules to papules, blisters, pustules, and scabs before falling off. The lesions may have a central depression and be extremely itchy.

If the patient scratches them, a secondary bacterial infection may take hold (for which treatment with oral antihistamines is indicated). Lesions may also be present in the oral or ocular mucous membrane. Either before or at the same time as onset of the rash, patients may experience swelling of the lymph nodes, which usually is not seen with smallpox or chickenpox.

The onset of the rash is considered the start of the infectious period; however, people with prodromal symptoms may also transmit the virus.

Most cases in people present with mild or moderate symptoms. Complications seen in endemic countries include encephalitis, secondary bacterial skin infections, dehydration, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and pneumonia. The death rate ranges from 0% to 11% in endemic areas, with fatalities from the disease mostly occurring in younger children.

There is not a lot of information available on the disease in immunosuppressed individuals. In the 2017 Nigerian epidemic, patients with a concomitant HIV infection presented with more severe disease, with a greater number of skin lesions and genital ulcers, compared with HIV-negative individuals. No deaths were reported among seropositive patients. The main sequelae from the disease are usually disfiguring scars and permanent corneal lesions.
 

Treatment

No smallpox vaccines are authorized for use against monkeypox, however the third-generation smallpox vaccine Imvanex (Modified Vaccinia Ankara) has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the EU market against smallpox and has demonstrated to provide protection in primates.

Old-generation smallpox vaccines have significant side effects, are no longer authorized, and should no longer be used. It is also important to note the lack of safety data for the use of Imvanex in immunocompromised people.

For this reason, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups have been asked to develop specific guidelines for vaccination in close contacts of patients with monkeypox. The use of a smallpox vaccine for preexposure prophylaxis cannot be considered now, when taking into account the risk-benefit ratio.

In regard to treatment, tecovirimat is the only antiviral drug with an EMA-authorized indication for orthopoxvirus infection.

Brincidofovir is not authorized in the EU but has been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, availability on the European market is limited somewhat by the number of doses.

According to the ECDC, health care authorities should provide information about which groups should have priority access to treatment.

The use of antivirals for postexposure prophylaxis should be investigated further. Cidofovir is active in vitro for smallpox but has a pronounced nephrotoxicity profile that makes it unsuitable for first-line treatment.

The ECDC document also proposes an interim case definition for epidemiologic reporting. Further indications will also be provided for the management of monkeypox cases and close contacts. Those infected should remain in isolation until the scabs have fallen off and should, above all, avoid close contact with at-risk or immunosuppressed people as well as pets.

Most infected people can remain at home with supportive care.
 

Prevention

Close contacts for cases of monkeypox should monitor the development of their symptoms until 21 days have passed from their most recent exposure to the virus.

Health care workers should wear appropriate PPE (gloves, water-resistant gowns, FFP2 masks) during screening for suspected cases or when working with confirmed cases. Laboratory staff should also take precautions to avoid exposure in the workplace.

Close contacts of an infected person should not donate blood, organs, or bone marrow for at least 21 days from the last day of exposure.

Finally, the ECDC recommends increasing proactive communication of the risks to increase awareness and provide updates and indications to individuals who are at a greater risk, as well as to the general public. These messages should highlight that monkeypox is spread through close person-to-person contact, especially within the family unit, and also potentially through sexual intercourse. A balance, however, should be maintained between informing the individuals who are at greater risk and communicating that the virus is not easily spread and that the risk for the general population is low.
 

Human-to-animal transmission

A potential risk for human-to-animal transmission exists in Europe; therefore, a close collaboration is required between human and veterinary health care authorities, working together to manage domestic animals exposed to the virus and to prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife. To date, the European Food Safety Authority is not aware of any reports of animal infections (domestic or wild) within the EU.

There are still many unknown factors about this outbreak. The ECDC continues to closely monitor any developments and will update the risk assessment as soon as new data and information become available.

If human-to-animal transmission occurs and the virus spreads among animal populations, there is a risk that the disease could become an endemic in Europe. Therefore, human and veterinary health care authorities should work together closely to manage cases of domestic animals exposed to the virus and prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

In a new risk-assessment document, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control summarizes what we currently know about monkeypox and recommends that European countries focus on the identification and management of the disease as well as contract tracing and prompt reporting of new cases of the virus.

Recent developments

From May 15 to May 23, in eight European Union member states (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) a total of 85 cases of monkeypox were reported; they were acquired through autochthonous transmission. Current diagnosed cases of monkeypox have mainly been recorded in men who have sexual relations with other men, suggesting that transmission may occur during sexual intercourse, through infectious material coming into contact with mucosa or damaged skin, or via large respiratory droplets during prolonged face-to-face contact.

Andrea Ammon, MD, director of the ECDC, stated that “most current cases have presented with mild symptoms of the disease, and for the general population, the chance of diffusion is very low. However, the likelihood of a further spread of the virus through close contact, for example during sexual activities among people with multiple sexual partners, is considerably increased.”

Stella Kyriakides, European commissioner for health and food safety, added, “I am worried about the increase of cases of monkeypox in the EU and worldwide. We are currently monitoring the situation and, although, at the moment, the probability of it spreading to the general population is low, the situation is evolving. We should all remain alert, making sure that contact tracing and a sufficient diagnostic capacity are in place and guarantee that vaccines and antiviral drugs are available, as well as sufficient personal protective equipment [PPE] for health care professionals.”
 

Routes of transmission

Monkeypox is not easily spread among people. Person-to-person transmission occurs through close contact with infectious material, coming from skin lesions of an infected person, through air droplets in the case of prolonged face-to-face contact, and through fomites. So far, diagnosed cases suggest that transmission can occur through sexual intercourse.

The incubation period is 5-21 days, and patients are symptomatic for 2-4 weeks.

According to the ECDC, the likelihood of this infection spreading is increased among people who have more than one sexual partner. Although most current cases present with mild symptoms, monkeypox can cause severe disease in some groups (such as young children, pregnant women, and immunosuppressed people). However, the probability of severe disease cannot yet be estimated precisely.

The overall risk is considered moderate for people who have multiple sexual partners and low for the general population.
 

Clinical course

The disease initially presents with fever, myalgia, fatigue, and headache. Within 3 days of the onset of the prodromal symptoms, a centrifugal maculopapular rash appears on the site of primary infection and rapidly spreads to other parts of the body. The palms of the hands and bottoms of the feet are involved in cases where the rash has spread, which is a characteristic of the disease. Usually within 12 days, the lesions progress, simultaneously changing from macules to papules, blisters, pustules, and scabs before falling off. The lesions may have a central depression and be extremely itchy.

If the patient scratches them, a secondary bacterial infection may take hold (for which treatment with oral antihistamines is indicated). Lesions may also be present in the oral or ocular mucous membrane. Either before or at the same time as onset of the rash, patients may experience swelling of the lymph nodes, which usually is not seen with smallpox or chickenpox.

The onset of the rash is considered the start of the infectious period; however, people with prodromal symptoms may also transmit the virus.

Most cases in people present with mild or moderate symptoms. Complications seen in endemic countries include encephalitis, secondary bacterial skin infections, dehydration, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and pneumonia. The death rate ranges from 0% to 11% in endemic areas, with fatalities from the disease mostly occurring in younger children.

There is not a lot of information available on the disease in immunosuppressed individuals. In the 2017 Nigerian epidemic, patients with a concomitant HIV infection presented with more severe disease, with a greater number of skin lesions and genital ulcers, compared with HIV-negative individuals. No deaths were reported among seropositive patients. The main sequelae from the disease are usually disfiguring scars and permanent corneal lesions.
 

Treatment

No smallpox vaccines are authorized for use against monkeypox, however the third-generation smallpox vaccine Imvanex (Modified Vaccinia Ankara) has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the EU market against smallpox and has demonstrated to provide protection in primates.

Old-generation smallpox vaccines have significant side effects, are no longer authorized, and should no longer be used. It is also important to note the lack of safety data for the use of Imvanex in immunocompromised people.

For this reason, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups have been asked to develop specific guidelines for vaccination in close contacts of patients with monkeypox. The use of a smallpox vaccine for preexposure prophylaxis cannot be considered now, when taking into account the risk-benefit ratio.

In regard to treatment, tecovirimat is the only antiviral drug with an EMA-authorized indication for orthopoxvirus infection.

Brincidofovir is not authorized in the EU but has been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, availability on the European market is limited somewhat by the number of doses.

According to the ECDC, health care authorities should provide information about which groups should have priority access to treatment.

The use of antivirals for postexposure prophylaxis should be investigated further. Cidofovir is active in vitro for smallpox but has a pronounced nephrotoxicity profile that makes it unsuitable for first-line treatment.

The ECDC document also proposes an interim case definition for epidemiologic reporting. Further indications will also be provided for the management of monkeypox cases and close contacts. Those infected should remain in isolation until the scabs have fallen off and should, above all, avoid close contact with at-risk or immunosuppressed people as well as pets.

Most infected people can remain at home with supportive care.
 

Prevention

Close contacts for cases of monkeypox should monitor the development of their symptoms until 21 days have passed from their most recent exposure to the virus.

Health care workers should wear appropriate PPE (gloves, water-resistant gowns, FFP2 masks) during screening for suspected cases or when working with confirmed cases. Laboratory staff should also take precautions to avoid exposure in the workplace.

Close contacts of an infected person should not donate blood, organs, or bone marrow for at least 21 days from the last day of exposure.

Finally, the ECDC recommends increasing proactive communication of the risks to increase awareness and provide updates and indications to individuals who are at a greater risk, as well as to the general public. These messages should highlight that monkeypox is spread through close person-to-person contact, especially within the family unit, and also potentially through sexual intercourse. A balance, however, should be maintained between informing the individuals who are at greater risk and communicating that the virus is not easily spread and that the risk for the general population is low.
 

Human-to-animal transmission

A potential risk for human-to-animal transmission exists in Europe; therefore, a close collaboration is required between human and veterinary health care authorities, working together to manage domestic animals exposed to the virus and to prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife. To date, the European Food Safety Authority is not aware of any reports of animal infections (domestic or wild) within the EU.

There are still many unknown factors about this outbreak. The ECDC continues to closely monitor any developments and will update the risk assessment as soon as new data and information become available.

If human-to-animal transmission occurs and the virus spreads among animal populations, there is a risk that the disease could become an endemic in Europe. Therefore, human and veterinary health care authorities should work together closely to manage cases of domestic animals exposed to the virus and prevent transmission of the disease to wildlife.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

The FDA has accepted Pfizer’s application for a COVID-19 vaccine for children under age 5, which clears the way for approval and distribution in June.

Pfizer announced June 1 that it completed the application for a three-dose vaccine for kids between 6 months and 5 years old, and the FDA said it received the emergency use application.

Children in this age group – the last to be eligible for COVID-19 vaccines – could begin getting shots as early as June 21, according to White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are still high – an average of 100,000 cases a day – but death numbers are about 90% lower than they were when President Joe Biden first took office, Dr. Jha said. 

The FDA’s advisory group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, is scheduled to meet June 14 and June 15 to discuss data submitted by both Pfizer and Moderna.  

If the FDA gives them the green light, the CDC will then weigh in.

“We know that many, many parents are eager to vaccinate their youngest kids, and it’s important to do this right,” Dr. Jha said at a White House press briefing on June 2. “We expect that vaccinations will begin in earnest as early as June 21 and really roll on throughout that week.”

States can place their orders as early as June 3, Dr. Jha said, and there will initially be 10 million doses available. If the FDA gives emergency use authorization for the vaccines, the government will begin shipping doses to thousands of sites across the country.

“The good news is we have plenty of supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” Dr. Jha said. “We’ve asked states to distribute to their highest priority sites, serving the highest risk and hardest to reach areas.”

Pfizer’s clinical trials found that three doses of the vaccine for children 6 months to under 5 years were safe and effective and proved to be 80% effective against Omicron.

The FDA announced its meeting information with a conversation about the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 scheduled for June 14 and a conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for young children scheduled for June 15.

Moderna applied for FDA authorization of its two-dose vaccine for children under age 6 on April 28. The company said the vaccine was 51% effective against infections with symptoms for children ages 6 months to 2 years and 37% effective for ages 2-5.

Pfizer’s 3-microgram dose is one-tenth of its adult dose. Moderna’s 25-microgram dose is one-quarter of its adult dose.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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