Skip to content

Yesterday, October 30, was a day off for me. To celebrate, I attended the 7-hour online meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC. The topic was COVID-19 vaccines. This was the last regular meeting of the ACIP until February, although they will convene on an emergency basis before that time if/when a COVID-19 vaccine trial has enough data to merit discussion. Everyone fully expects that to happen within the next few to several weeks.

The day included presentations from 14 speakers representing FDA, CDC, and vaccine manufacturers and covered regulatory, ethical, scientific, and other topics. I found the modeling discussion most enlightening; it was an attempt to display various outcomes for infection rates and deaths based on how effective a potential vaccine might be, what groups are prioritized for vaccine administration in the early stages of vaccine deployment, and what the US epidemic curve is doing at the time immunization is begun. It was definitely not intended to be a predictive model but rather a general methodology to use whenever a vaccine is ready to be released for use. At that time, more specific data regarding vaccine efficacy and current epidemiology can be plugged into the model to help guide early deployment. More about the modeling later. Here are my take-home points for pediatric healthcare providers distilled from those 7 hours.

Worldwide we now have over 200 COVID-19 vaccines in various stages of study. Honing down to the US, we have 5 vaccines in either Phase I or Phase II testing in humans and 4 in Phase III. Let's focus on the Phase III products since 1 or more of those likely will have results to report in the next few weeks to months. Two of them, AZD1222 (AstraZeneca/Oxford, the UK vaccine you've probably heard a lot about) and Ad26CoV2S1 (Janssen) were paused for safety monitoring but now have resumed recruiting volunteers, though the AstraZeneca product is still on hold in the US. mRNA-BMT162 (Pfizer/BioNTech) is recruiting still but is far along, having enrolled around 42,000 subjects of which about 35,000 have received the second dose of the 2-dose series. Finally, mRNA-1273 from Moderna has completed enrollment of around 30,000 people of whom ~25,000 have received the second and final dose of that series. Most likely we will hear trial results on the Moderna product within a few weeks.

An FDA representative (full disclosure, happens to be a longtime colleague and friend of mine) provided an overview of how FDA rules will be applied in this situation. Again, you've probably seen a lot about this, with some back and forth on the application of product release under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) which can only be applied in national emergency situations like we have now. Understand that in general EUA is a "lower bar" to clear than is full licensure, but the FDA has very clearly laid out their requirements in this situation. It's really a balance of ensuring safety but not delaying consideration for EUA for such a prolonged period of time that we find ourselves in a worse hole with cases and deaths.

Let's get to the modelling discussion. The group at CDC stratified the population into 5 age groups, 0-4 years of age, 5-17, 18-49, 50-64, and 65+. Note that this oldest category consists of 55 million people nationally (including yours truly!). They also stratified by low-risk or high-risk, the latter consisting of at least 1 of the following medical conditions: COPD, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Nationally 40% of adults, 100 million people total, fall into the high risk category. Another interesting tidbit is that ~40% of adults 18-64 years of age, or 80 million people, are classified as essential workers; 1/4 of those are healthcare workers. The modelers made various assumptions about vaccine efficacy in different age groups, etc, and the main focus of their presentation was in Phase 1 distribution of 200 million courses of vaccine. This phase has been divided into Phase 1A consisting of healthcare personnel (20 million courses) and Phase 1B for adults 65+, high-risk adults, and essential workers (180 million courses total). The modeling discussion was most interesting in trying to prioritize Phase 1B individuals - which of those 3 groups should go first, second, third. Various modeling assumptions and outcomes (i.e. what strategy prevents the most infections versus what prevents the most deaths) produced slightly different suggestions for vaccine prioritization.

What was most important, however, was that the timing of vaccine in relation to the epidemic surges going on was by far the biggest determinant of how effective a vaccine will be at any of these outcomes. This isn't surprising particularly, it's why we don't target annual flu vaccination to start in the middle of our annual epidemics. However, the modelling numbers were impressive and point to the main take-home message for all of us: it has never been more important than right now to use those SARS-CoV2 mitigation strategies. Failure to do so diminishes the benefit from a COVID-19 vaccine and makes it even more likely that we'll see more preventable deaths and more harm to our economy.

A few other interesting details from the session. Federal officials are working hard to reach out to everyone in our society to provide vaccine information, including providing information sheets in >20 languages. Also, vaccine recipients will be asked to use a smartphone app to provide real-time feedback for safety monitoring and illness after vaccination. CDC officials provided a brief review of the evidence to date regarding possibility of reinfection with SARS-CoV2. So far this is at most an uncommon event in the first 3 months following infection, but possibly could become more common if immunity wanes later after natural infection. Multiple individuals weighed in regarding vaccination during pregnancy. New data from CDC, so far unpublished, indicate that pregnant women are at higher risk for worse outcomes with COVID-19 (earlier published data were a bit more equivocal). We likely won't have a lot of data on vaccine safety in this population very soon, and it seems that pregnancy will be listed as a precaution but not a contraindication for vaccination.

Which brings us to our final group, children. We need to be very careful with the safety of any vaccine being administered to a healthy child, particularly for an infection that has a much lower complication rate than in adults. So far, we have no pediatric data at all about these vaccines. Certainly children will eventually be enrolled in vaccine trials, once we have sufficient longer term safety and efficacy information from the adult studies. We'll have to be a little patient here.

There is so much more I'd love to tell you about this session, but I've probably already used up some of that patience you need to save waiting for the pediatric vaccine trials. Soon more details from this meeting will be available at the ACIP website. Just know this: I am very reassured with the transparency surrounding vaccine development and distribution, and I am confident I'll see enough of the results from these trials that I'll be able to judge independently whether or not to recommend a vaccine for a specific group. Although you won't be providing COVID-19 vaccine for your pediatric patients anytime soon, you undoubtedly will hear a lot of vaccine questions from your patients and families. A primary care provider is probably the most important individual to help families with vaccine decisions, now more than ever. Whenever a vaccine becomes available for use in the US, of course I'll let you know what I think but know that ACIP/CDC will have toolkits available for you to consult and assess as well.

In the meantime, please ensure all your patients receive their seasonal flu vaccine and are practicing safe COVID-19 mitigation strategies.

I guess it might be nice to talk about something besides COVID-19, but diphtheria definitely is not nice. A couple of weeks ago the CDC issued a Level 1 travel alert for Vietnam due to an outbreak of diphtheria in the Central Highlands region. Level 1 is the lowest of 3 travel alert levels, just meaning to keep a watch on things if planning to travel there.

I'm hoping no one feels the need to travel abroad now with our current pandemic possibly ramping up again, but this notice does provide us with a good opportunity to review clinical signs and symptoms of diphtheria, a disease very few of us have seen.

Of course it is a vaccine-preventable disease, so immunization is our primary guard against becoming ill. Remember it is a toxin-mediated disease, with fatalities usually due to myocarditis or to neuritis causing paralysis. In addition to common findings of sore throat and low-grade fever, the characteristic gray pseudomembrane can form in the pharynx or nose and is a big clue for the disease if you know what you are looking for. Respiratory diphtheria is fairly contagious, leading to outbreaks. Antitoxin and antibiotic therapy are mainstays to prevent complications in infected individuals, and antibiotic treatment can reduce transmission to others. The CDC's Yellow Book has a concise summary of features.

Speaking of vaccines, please remember not to let our pandemic delay children being immunized!

2

Last night we had our first (virtual) meeting of the new season for the Montgomery County Pediatric Society, great to "see" everyone even in the online sense. As I mentioned at the time, I was planning to post a brief comment about a systematic review of PCR and antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2, not necessarily because it is so earth shattering but because it is a nice summary of the current state of the art and a reminder of difficulties in test interpretation.

The article is in a journal probably none of you have ever come across, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. However, EBM has been dear to my heart since before the term was invented in the early 1990s. The authors performed a detailed review of publications to try to synthesize evidence on the diagnostic accuracy for all known tests for SARS-CoV-2 and arrive at some conclusions about the clinical effectiveness of this testing. An important caveat, though: the search is current only up to May 4, 2020, so it does not include anything about the newer antigen tests as well as any data published subsequently. Their methodology is sound, though complex, and the basic conclusions are still accurate today.

For detection of the virus, and basically we are just talking here about PCR tests, the authors found that overall sensitivity was 87.8% with 95% confidence interval 81.5% to 92.2%. In the strictly PCR studies, all the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 so no good way to estimate specificity. The sensitivity might sound good, but it depends on what clinical situation you are dealing with, plus note that it does not include asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic patients for the most part.

A subset of viral detection methods used isothermal amplification assays with PCR as a reference standard, so here it was possible to make a guess about accuracies. The sensitivities and specificities ranged from 74.7% to 100% and 87.7% to 100%, respectively, but because of inconsistencies among the various studies the authors did not feel it was valid to pool the results to provide a single estimate of those numbers.

The results for the antibody studies were more problematic. Of the 10 studies the authors felt had sufficient information to calculate sensitivity and specificity, sensitivity ranged from 18.4% to 96.1% and specificity from 88.9% to 100%. Needless to say, the sensitivity results in particular aren't very encouraging. Antibody testing continues to be solely a research and epidemiologic aid; beware any use for single patient decision-making.

The take-home point of all of this is that we have a long way to go before we are able to make optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 testing for clinical decision making. False negatives in general are uncommon for PCR and related tests, but remember that stage of illness and technique of specimen collection are important determinants of results and need to be considered in interpreting tests for individuals.

I'd be surprised if any of this blog's readers would catch the reference to TW3, an abbreviation for a short-lived television series, That Was The Week That Was, first appearing in England on the BBC and then in the US. It was a bit of a parody of current events, and I'm not even sure how I still remember it except for the fact that its writing crew included one of my favorite children's book authors, Roald Dahl, as well as a couple of future members of the Monty Python comedy group. That obtuse reference aside, this past Thursday I was planning to post a list of 3 new items of interest regarding our current pandemic; then, our President developed COVID-19 disease.

At this point we should all be pleased that he appears to be stable, but I wish we had more details of how contact tracing and quarantining is going related to all the possible contacts. By now (Sunday October 4) all contacts should have been notified and plans for testing, quarantine, and/or isolation should be complete. Regardless, those original 3 items are still worthy of mention.

The Children's National Hospital-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 3rd Annual Symposium. This event was held on September 29 and initially was established to build on collaboration in research and education between CNH and NIAID. This year the symposium focused on COVID-19 with quite a lineup of speakers, including Dr. Anthony Fauci from NIAID, Dr. Peter Hotez from Baylor College of Medicine (and formerly from GWU), and Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel from U. Pennsylvania. The presentations were a mix of more general and/or clinical presentations along with basic science updates, particularly in immunology. Anyone can access the entire day's session at a CNH link. I highly recommend the above 3 speakers and also the question and answer periods between the different sessions.

National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine. On October 2 NASEM held a webinar discussing their 237-page report, long awaited by many of us who have been following the progress of this very important advisory committee. Anyone can download a digital copy of the report at no cost. The committee was co-chaired by Dr. William Foege, a former director of the CDC, and Dr. Helene Gayle, who has held many key international healthcare positions including heading the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and then CARE. (I might add she is a graduate of CNH's pediatric residency, though before my time there.)

I was very impressed by the thoughtfulness, breadth, and depth that went into the report. This group actually completed the entire plan in about 2 months, an amazing feat. Of course the report is a lot to get through, but if you want to browse look at page 86 of the PDF document about the allocation framework, the Table on page 90, the discussion beginning on page 92, and the graphic below from page 94. The exact plans for implementation will depend primarily on the Advisory Council for Immunization Practices, NIH, and other agencies and when/if various vaccines are approved. Clearly it will be a very complex undertaking, but I am very much in agreement with the group's foundational principles and plan. I hope to have time to describe the plan in slightly more detail at the next Montgomery County Pediatric Society meeting on October 12.

"The Carnage of Substandard Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic." This is a direct quote from the title of an article published in BMJ last week, quite an eye-catcher! Despite the sensational title, it's an excellent discussion of the difficulties of interpreting medical research and reports in the pandemic era, although all of these problems existed previously. The author is a bioethicist, and she highlights some key issues including the number of retractions or withdrawals of articles, the large number of studies published only on pre-print websites that do not undergo peer review, and the overall substandard research methods, perhaps fueled by the urgency of the pandemic but resulting in hasty conclusions. It's a short article, take time to read it and decide where you stand.