User login
Proposed HIPAA overhaul to ease access to patient health info
The Department of Health & Human Services is proposing an overhaul of HIPAA that will make it easier to access patients’ personal health information, including the health records of patients with mental illness. The proposal would also do away with the requirement that all patients sign a notice of privacy practices.
The changes are contained in a 357-page proposed rule, which was unveiled by federal officials Dec. 10. Roger Severino, director of HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, said in a briefing that the sweeping proposal would empower patients, reduce the administrative burden for health care providers, and pave the way to better-coordinated care.
HHS estimated that the rule could save $3.2 billion over 5 years, but it’s not clear how much of that would accrue to clinical practices.
The most obvious cost-saving aspect for medical and dental practices is the proposal that practitioners would no longer have to provide and collect signed notifications of privacy practices.
“This has been a tremendous waste of time and effort and has caused massive confusion,” said Mr. Severino. He said some patients thought they were waiving privacy rights and that, in some cases, physicians refused to administer care unless patients signed the notices. “That was never the intent.”
Requiring that patients sign the form and that practices keep copies for 6 years is an “unnecessary burden,” said Mr. Severino. “We’ve lost whole forests from this regulation.”
Under the new proposal, health care providers would merely have to let patients know where to find their privacy policies.
Sharing mental health info
The rule would also ease the standard for sharing information about a patient who is in a mental health crisis, such as an exacerbation of a serious mental illness or a crisis related to a substance use disorder, including an overdose.
Currently, clinicians can choose to disclose protected health information – to a family member, a caregiver, a law enforcement official, a doctor, or an insurer – if they believe that doing so is advisable in their “professional judgment.” The rule proposes to ease that to a “good faith” belief that a disclosure would be in the best interest of the patient. In both instances, the patient can still object and block the disclosure.
As an example, HHS said that, in the case of a young adult who had experienced an overdose of opioids, a licensed health care professional could make the determination to “disclose relevant information to a parent who is involved in the patient’s treatment and who the young adult would expect, based on their relationship, to participate in or be involved with the patient’s recovery from the overdose.”
HHS is also proposing to let clinicians disclose information in cases in which an individual might be a threat to himself or others, provided the harm is “serious and reasonably foreseeable.”
Currently, information can only be disclosed if it appears there is a “serious and imminent” threat to health or safety. If an individual experienced suicidal ideation, for instance, a health care professional could notify family that the individual is at risk.
Fast, no-cost access
The rule also aims to make it easier for patients to get access to their own health care information quickly – within 15 days of a request – instead of the 30 days currently allowed, and sometimes at no cost.
The 30-day time frame is “a relic of a pre-Internet age that should be dispensed with,” said Mr. Severino.
Patients can also request that a treating physician get his or her records from a clinician who had previously treated the individual. The request would be fulfilled within 15 days, although extensions might be possible.
“That takes away the burden of coordination from the patient and puts it on those parties that are responsible for the actual provision of care and that are better positioned to do that coordination,” Mr. Severino said.
Health care professionals will also have to share with patients a fee schedule for records requests. However, if records are shared through a patient portal with view, download, and transmit capabilities, the provider can’t charge the patient for the time it took to upload the information into the system.
“We do not believe a patient’s personal medical record should be profit centers for providers,” Mr. Severino said.
Patients will be allowed to take photos with a smartphone of personal health information – such as an x-ray or sonogram – while receiving care.
The rule is open for public comment until mid-February. After that, it will become final in 180 days. The agency said it would not begin enforcement until 240 days after the final rule was published.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Department of Health & Human Services is proposing an overhaul of HIPAA that will make it easier to access patients’ personal health information, including the health records of patients with mental illness. The proposal would also do away with the requirement that all patients sign a notice of privacy practices.
The changes are contained in a 357-page proposed rule, which was unveiled by federal officials Dec. 10. Roger Severino, director of HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, said in a briefing that the sweeping proposal would empower patients, reduce the administrative burden for health care providers, and pave the way to better-coordinated care.
HHS estimated that the rule could save $3.2 billion over 5 years, but it’s not clear how much of that would accrue to clinical practices.
The most obvious cost-saving aspect for medical and dental practices is the proposal that practitioners would no longer have to provide and collect signed notifications of privacy practices.
“This has been a tremendous waste of time and effort and has caused massive confusion,” said Mr. Severino. He said some patients thought they were waiving privacy rights and that, in some cases, physicians refused to administer care unless patients signed the notices. “That was never the intent.”
Requiring that patients sign the form and that practices keep copies for 6 years is an “unnecessary burden,” said Mr. Severino. “We’ve lost whole forests from this regulation.”
Under the new proposal, health care providers would merely have to let patients know where to find their privacy policies.
Sharing mental health info
The rule would also ease the standard for sharing information about a patient who is in a mental health crisis, such as an exacerbation of a serious mental illness or a crisis related to a substance use disorder, including an overdose.
Currently, clinicians can choose to disclose protected health information – to a family member, a caregiver, a law enforcement official, a doctor, or an insurer – if they believe that doing so is advisable in their “professional judgment.” The rule proposes to ease that to a “good faith” belief that a disclosure would be in the best interest of the patient. In both instances, the patient can still object and block the disclosure.
As an example, HHS said that, in the case of a young adult who had experienced an overdose of opioids, a licensed health care professional could make the determination to “disclose relevant information to a parent who is involved in the patient’s treatment and who the young adult would expect, based on their relationship, to participate in or be involved with the patient’s recovery from the overdose.”
HHS is also proposing to let clinicians disclose information in cases in which an individual might be a threat to himself or others, provided the harm is “serious and reasonably foreseeable.”
Currently, information can only be disclosed if it appears there is a “serious and imminent” threat to health or safety. If an individual experienced suicidal ideation, for instance, a health care professional could notify family that the individual is at risk.
Fast, no-cost access
The rule also aims to make it easier for patients to get access to their own health care information quickly – within 15 days of a request – instead of the 30 days currently allowed, and sometimes at no cost.
The 30-day time frame is “a relic of a pre-Internet age that should be dispensed with,” said Mr. Severino.
Patients can also request that a treating physician get his or her records from a clinician who had previously treated the individual. The request would be fulfilled within 15 days, although extensions might be possible.
“That takes away the burden of coordination from the patient and puts it on those parties that are responsible for the actual provision of care and that are better positioned to do that coordination,” Mr. Severino said.
Health care professionals will also have to share with patients a fee schedule for records requests. However, if records are shared through a patient portal with view, download, and transmit capabilities, the provider can’t charge the patient for the time it took to upload the information into the system.
“We do not believe a patient’s personal medical record should be profit centers for providers,” Mr. Severino said.
Patients will be allowed to take photos with a smartphone of personal health information – such as an x-ray or sonogram – while receiving care.
The rule is open for public comment until mid-February. After that, it will become final in 180 days. The agency said it would not begin enforcement until 240 days after the final rule was published.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Department of Health & Human Services is proposing an overhaul of HIPAA that will make it easier to access patients’ personal health information, including the health records of patients with mental illness. The proposal would also do away with the requirement that all patients sign a notice of privacy practices.
The changes are contained in a 357-page proposed rule, which was unveiled by federal officials Dec. 10. Roger Severino, director of HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, said in a briefing that the sweeping proposal would empower patients, reduce the administrative burden for health care providers, and pave the way to better-coordinated care.
HHS estimated that the rule could save $3.2 billion over 5 years, but it’s not clear how much of that would accrue to clinical practices.
The most obvious cost-saving aspect for medical and dental practices is the proposal that practitioners would no longer have to provide and collect signed notifications of privacy practices.
“This has been a tremendous waste of time and effort and has caused massive confusion,” said Mr. Severino. He said some patients thought they were waiving privacy rights and that, in some cases, physicians refused to administer care unless patients signed the notices. “That was never the intent.”
Requiring that patients sign the form and that practices keep copies for 6 years is an “unnecessary burden,” said Mr. Severino. “We’ve lost whole forests from this regulation.”
Under the new proposal, health care providers would merely have to let patients know where to find their privacy policies.
Sharing mental health info
The rule would also ease the standard for sharing information about a patient who is in a mental health crisis, such as an exacerbation of a serious mental illness or a crisis related to a substance use disorder, including an overdose.
Currently, clinicians can choose to disclose protected health information – to a family member, a caregiver, a law enforcement official, a doctor, or an insurer – if they believe that doing so is advisable in their “professional judgment.” The rule proposes to ease that to a “good faith” belief that a disclosure would be in the best interest of the patient. In both instances, the patient can still object and block the disclosure.
As an example, HHS said that, in the case of a young adult who had experienced an overdose of opioids, a licensed health care professional could make the determination to “disclose relevant information to a parent who is involved in the patient’s treatment and who the young adult would expect, based on their relationship, to participate in or be involved with the patient’s recovery from the overdose.”
HHS is also proposing to let clinicians disclose information in cases in which an individual might be a threat to himself or others, provided the harm is “serious and reasonably foreseeable.”
Currently, information can only be disclosed if it appears there is a “serious and imminent” threat to health or safety. If an individual experienced suicidal ideation, for instance, a health care professional could notify family that the individual is at risk.
Fast, no-cost access
The rule also aims to make it easier for patients to get access to their own health care information quickly – within 15 days of a request – instead of the 30 days currently allowed, and sometimes at no cost.
The 30-day time frame is “a relic of a pre-Internet age that should be dispensed with,” said Mr. Severino.
Patients can also request that a treating physician get his or her records from a clinician who had previously treated the individual. The request would be fulfilled within 15 days, although extensions might be possible.
“That takes away the burden of coordination from the patient and puts it on those parties that are responsible for the actual provision of care and that are better positioned to do that coordination,” Mr. Severino said.
Health care professionals will also have to share with patients a fee schedule for records requests. However, if records are shared through a patient portal with view, download, and transmit capabilities, the provider can’t charge the patient for the time it took to upload the information into the system.
“We do not believe a patient’s personal medical record should be profit centers for providers,” Mr. Severino said.
Patients will be allowed to take photos with a smartphone of personal health information – such as an x-ray or sonogram – while receiving care.
The rule is open for public comment until mid-February. After that, it will become final in 180 days. The agency said it would not begin enforcement until 240 days after the final rule was published.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Kennedy, NIMH demand urgent action on COVID-19 mental health toll
A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.
“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.
“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.
“ he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”
Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.
“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
Plan of action
Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.
Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.
That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.
In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.
The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:
- Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
- Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
- Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
- Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
- Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
- Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.
Uptick in distress
Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.
A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.
In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.
COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.
The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.
Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.
More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.
“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.
“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.
“ he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”
Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.
“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
Plan of action
Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.
Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.
That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.
In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.
The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:
- Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
- Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
- Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
- Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
- Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
- Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.
Uptick in distress
Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.
A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.
In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.
COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.
The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.
Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.
More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A public-private partnership, led by mental health advocate Patrick Kennedy and the head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Joshua Gordon, MD, PhD, want urgent action to address the wave of mental illness and suicide caused by COVID-19.
“Our country is in serious denial about the full impact of mental health in this country and certainly as part of this pandemic,” said former congressman Mr. Kennedy, cochair of the Action Alliance’s Mental Health & Suicide Prevention National Response to COVID-19, at a briefing unveiling the group’s new six-priority Action Plan.
“That’s reinforced when all we hear from is Dr. Fauci,” and only about the physical effects of the disease, said Mr. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to changing the health system’s approach to mental health and substance use disorders.
“ he said. Mr. Kennedy noted the huge effort to speed therapeutics and vaccines to the American public. “We need to bring that same sense of urgency to these deaths of despair hiding in plain sight.”
Dr. Gordon, NIMH’s director and a cochair of the National Response group, was also at the briefing.
“We know many people report experiencing symptoms of distress, including anxiety, sleep problems, depression, substance use, and suicidal thoughts at rates two to three times higher than we might expect in times before the pandemic. Just as the country has come together to mitigate the physical impacts of pandemic, we also have to identify how to mitigate the mental health impacts,” said Dr. Gordon.
Plan of action
Mr. Kennedy emphasized that it is crucial that federal lawmakers and regulators find a way to increase parity between mental and physical health.
Paramount in that effort would be ensuring stronger enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, he said.
That 1996 law requires health plans to ensure that benefits for physical and mental health were equivalent, but it has frequently been ignored. In 2019, a U.S. federal court found that one of the nation’s largest behavioral health insurers, United Behavioral Health, had been violating the law. Mr. Kennedy said he expects this decision to continue to have a positive impact on achieving parity.
In November, United was ordered by a federal judge to reprocess 67,000 claims that it illegally denied.
The Alliance’s Action Plan has six priorities:
- Change the national conversation about mental health and suicide.
- Increase access to evidence-based treatments for substance use and mental health disorders in specialty and primary care, and include better reimbursement for services and make permanent reimbursement for telehealth services.
- Increase the use of nonpunitive and supportive crisis intervention services, including keeping people out of the criminal justice system.
- Establish near real-time data collection systems to promptly identify changes in rates of suicide, overdose, and other key events, and of clusters or spikes.
- Ensure the equitable delivery of comprehensive and effective suicide prevention and mental health services for Black Americans, Latin Americans, American Indian/Alaskan Natives, LGBTQ individuals, and others disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
- Invest in prevention and early intervention approaches that treat the root causes of suicide and mental health problems.
Uptick in distress
Dr. Gordon noted that recent data indicate that, although ED visits for children are still down in 2020, compared with previous years, mental health ED visits are back to prepandemic levels.
A September survey showed an increase in suicidal thoughts and attempts, anxiety, and depression pandemic in youth because of the pandemic. Almost one-quarter of those surveyed said they knew a peer who developed suicidal thoughts since the start of the pandemic and 5% reported making a suicide attempt themselves.
In early December, research reported in JAMA Psychiatry showed the overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends in 2018 and 2019, and that all overdose-related incidents were about 17% above baseline in 2020.
COVID-19 also appears to be striking individuals who are living in behavioral health facilities, and some of those facilities are reducing inpatient care and other programs because they don’t have enough personal protective equipment, testing supplies, or staff to cope with the disease.
The facilities are not required to report infections to the federal government. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) issued a report based on their own offices’ survey of 10 large behavioral health program operators.
Eight of those operators – covering 376 facilities and more than 100,000 patients in 40 states and Puerto Rico – provided substantive responses.
More than half had at least one COVID case and 14% had large outbreaks of 10 or more cases. The infection rate for patients was in line with that of the general public.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA gives guidance on allergy, pregnancy concerns for Pfizer COVID vaccine
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.
Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.
“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.
The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.
Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.
The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.
Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
Pregnancy concerns
Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”
Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.
An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC panel recommends Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 and over
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
stating they found it was safe and effective.
The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.
CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.
The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.
ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.
The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.
Allergies, pregnant women?
ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.
The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.
The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.
She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.
Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.
“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.
ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.
“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”
A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.
On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.
The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.
Should teens be a special population?
At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.
Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.
He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.
Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.
Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.
Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.
“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.
“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.
Vaccine = hope
Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.
Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”
“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.
The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just under three million will get COVID-19 vaccine in first week
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.
Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.
Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.
It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.
The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
Fewer doses out of the gate
Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.
He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.
In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.
Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.
Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”
That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HHS, Surgeon General urge action on maternal health
The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.
“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.
Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.
The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.
Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.
Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.
“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.
Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.
He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”
Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
Recommendations not all funded
The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.
The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.
“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.
The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.
The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.
The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.
“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.
Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.
The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.
Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.
Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.
“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.
Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.
He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”
Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
Recommendations not all funded
The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.
The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.
“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.
The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.
The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.
The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Surgeon General and Department of Health & Human Services are calling on health care professionals, hospitals, employers, insurers, women, and the nation to work together to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality – and the disparities that make the risks higher for women of color.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States is the highest among developed countries of the world and continues to rise. In 2018, for every 100,000 live births, approximately 17 women died while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy or delivery – that’s a substantial increase from 7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987, according to the surgeon general’s new call to action.
“Our mothers had much lower rates of dying related to pregnancy, compared to women today,” Dorothy Fink, MD, HHS deputy assistant secretary for women’s health, said at a briefing held Dec. 3 to mark the call to action.
Cardiovascular conditions were the most common cause of pregnancy-related deaths between 2011 and 2015, accounting for more than one in three of the deaths. HHS’s related action plan sets a target of achieving blood pressure control in 80% of women of reproductive age with hypertension by 2025.
The plan also seeks to reduce the maternal mortality rate by 50% and decrease low-risk cesarean deliveries by 25% within 5 years.
Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, said at the briefing. “This is not just unacceptable, it is just something that we need to understand is not inevitable,” he said, adding that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that two thirds of the deaths are preventable.
Dr. Adams also noted that it was important to address maternal health now, especially with COVID-19 raging. “Without attention and action, maternal health could actually worsen because of this pandemic,” he said.
“We cannot discuss maternal health, much less improve it, unless we acknowledge women of color are at a much greater risk of harm related to childbirth,” Dr. Adams said. “Black women are two to three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes compared to many other racial and ethnic groups.” The disparity increases with age, according to the CDC.
Studies have shown that education does not eliminate those disparities. Black women with a college degree are twice as likely to die as White or Asian American women who did not finish high school, Dr. Adams said.
He held up a photo of a colleague, Shalone Irving, who he said was a PhD-educated epidemiologist who “died not long ago from pregnancy-related complications.”
Income is also not a factor, said Dr. Adams, noting that pop singer Beyonce had a near-death experience with preeclampsia. He also noted that Serena Williams, a top athlete, also struggled with pregnancy complications.
Recommendations not all funded
The HHS action plan is not explicitly funded, although Dr. Fink and Dr. Adams said that President Donald J. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget includes some specific requests for improving maternal health. It will be up to Congress to grant the requests.
The budget seeks $80 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve access to and quality of care. It also includes money to expand Medicaid coverage for 1 year after birth for women with substance use disorders. The American Medical Association in 2019 adopted a policy urging Medicaid coverage to be expanded to include all women for a year after childbirth. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has also encouraged this extension.
“We are encouraged that the HHS action plan includes support for policies to close coverage and care gaps for all postpartum women after pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage expires,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an interview.
The HHS could act immediately by approving Medicaid waivers to extend such coverage, Dr. Phipps said.
The budget also requests $24 million to expand maternal mortality review programs to every state, said Dr. Fink. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia, have such committees, which are charged with reviewing deaths of women within a year of pregnancy or birth.
The HHS will also join with the March of Dimes to address the disparities in Black women by implementing evidence-based best practices to improve quality in hospital settings.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. In 2018, the president signed the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which authorized the CDC to award $50 million over 5 years so that every state could form maternal mortality review committees.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
ACIP: Health workers, long-term care residents first tier for COVID-19 vaccine
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.
The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.
“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.
Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.
“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.
“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”
CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.
But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
Prioritization could change
The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.
“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.
He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.
A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.
“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Staggered immunization subprioritization urged
The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.
“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.
The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.
Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.
Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.
The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.
ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer files for FDA emergency use authorization of COVID vaccine
Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.
It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.
“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.
“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”
Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.
“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.
The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:
- Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
- Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
- Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
- Data on the manufacturing processes.
According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
Vaccine logistics
The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.
Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.
The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.
Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.
The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.
Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.
Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.
It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.
“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.
“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”
Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.
“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.
The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:
- Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
- Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
- Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
- Data on the manufacturing processes.
According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
Vaccine logistics
The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.
Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.
The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.
Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.
The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.
Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.
Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.
It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.
“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.
“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”
Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.
“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.
The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:
- Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
- Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
- Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
- Data on the manufacturing processes.
According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
Vaccine logistics
The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.
Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.
The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.
Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.
The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.
Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.
Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Situation ‘dire’ as COVID spike in West, Midwest worsens, experts say
Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.
“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.
Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.
“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”
The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.
Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.
Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
Colleges likely driving spike
Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.
Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.
“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.
McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.
Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.
Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.
Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.
“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.
There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”
McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.
“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.
Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.
“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”
The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.
Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.
Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
Colleges likely driving spike
Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.
Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.
“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.
McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.
Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.
Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.
Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.
“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.
There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”
McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.
“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.
Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.
“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”
The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.
Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.
Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
Colleges likely driving spike
Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.
Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.
“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.
McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.
Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.
Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.
Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.
“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.
There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”
McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Trump could clean house at health agencies
Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.
Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.
Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.
Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.
It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.
Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.
In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
Fauci on the firing line?
Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.
The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.
But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.
To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.
He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.
In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.
Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.
Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.
In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.
Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.
Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.
Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.
It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.
Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.
In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
Fauci on the firing line?
Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.
The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.
But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.
To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.
He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.
In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.
Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.
Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.
In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.
Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.
Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.
Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.
It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.
Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.
In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
Fauci on the firing line?
Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.
The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.
But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.
To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.
He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.
In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.
Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.
Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.
In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.