Vaccines

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

A single injection of the experimental agent nirsevimab ahead of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season protects healthy infants from lower respiratory tract infections associated with the pathogen, according to the results of a phase 3 study.

A previously published trial showed that a single dose of nirsevimab was effective in preterm infants. The ability to protect all babies from RSV, which causes bronchiolitis and pneumonia and is a leading cause of hospitalization for this age group, “would be a paradigm shift in the approach to this disease,” William Muller, MD, PhD, of the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study, said in a statement.

The primary endpoint of the study was medically attended lower respiratory tract infections linked to RSV. The single injection of nirsevimab was associated with a 74.5% reduction in such infections (P < .001), according to Dr. Muller’s group, who published their findings March 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nirsevimab, a monoclonal antibody to the RSV fusion protein being developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi, has an extended half-life, which may allow one dose to confer protection throughout a season. The only approved option to prevent RSV, palivizumab (Synagis), is used for high-risk infants, and five injections are needed to cover a viral season.
 

Nearly 1,500 infants in more than 20 countries studied

To assess the effectiveness of nirsevimab in late-preterm and term infants, investigators at 160 sites randomly assigned 1,490 babies born at a gestational age of at least 35 weeks to receive an intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or placebo.

During the 150 days after injection, medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections occurred in 12 of 994 infants who received nirsevimab, compared with 25 of 496 babies who received placebo (1.2% vs. 5%).

Six of 994 infants who received nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections, compared with 8 of 496 infants in the placebo group (0.6% vs. 1.6%; P = .07). The proportion of children hospitalized for any respiratory illness as a result of RSV was 0.9% among those who received nirsevimab, compared with 2.2% among those who received placebo.

Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the nirsevimab group and 7.3% of the placebo group. None of these events, including three deaths in the nirsevimab group, was considered related to nirsevimab or placebo, according to the researchers. One infant who received nirsevimab had a generalized macular rash without systemic features that did not require treatment and resolved in 20 days, they said.

Antidrug antibodies were detected in 6.1% of the nirsevimab group and in 1.1% of the placebo group. These antidrug antibodies tended to develop later and did not affect nirsevimab pharmacokinetics during the RSV season, the researchers reported. How they might affect subsequent doses of nirsevimab is not known, they added.

In a separate report in the journal, researcher Joseph Domachowske, MD, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, and colleagues described safety results from an ongoing study of nirsevimab that includes infants with congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, and prematurity.

In this trial, infants received nirsevimab or palivizumab, and the treatments appeared to have similar safety profiles, the authors reported.

Other approaches to RSV protection include passive antibodies acquired from maternal vaccination in pregnancy and active vaccination of infants.

The publication follows news last month that GlaxoSmithKline is pausing a maternal RSV vaccine trial, which “had the same goal of protecting babies against severe RSV infection,” said Louis Bont, MD, PhD, with University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RSV infection is one of the deadliest diseases during infancy, and the nirsevimab trial, conducted in more than 20 countries, is “gamechanging,” Dr. Bont told this news organization. Still, researchers will need to monitor for RSV resistance to this treatment, he said.

Whether nirsevimab prevents the development of reactive airway disease and asthma is another open question, he said.

“Finally, we need to keep in mind that RSV mortality is almost limited to the developing world, and it is unlikely that this novel drug will become available to these countries in the coming years,” Dr. Bont said. “Nevertheless, nirsevimab has the potential to seriously decrease the annual overwhelming number of RSV infected babies.”

Nirsevimab may have advantages in low- and middle-income countries, including its potential to be incorporated into established immunization programs and to be given seasonally, said Amy Sarah Ginsburg, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “However, cost remains a significant factor, as does susceptibility to pathogen escape,” she said.

MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Sanofi funded the nirsevimab studies. UMC Utrecht has received research grants and fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca for RSV-related work by Bont.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

Many people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can mount a strong antibody response to a booster shot of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, including those who were unable to respond fully to an initial two-dose vaccine series, new evidence suggests.

Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.

“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.

Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A study design to measure boosters’ benefits

For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”

They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.

Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.

Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.

Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.

Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.

“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
 

A ‘reassuring’ finding

“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.

The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.

“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

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

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at imnews@mdedge.com.