Skip to content

2

Around the middle of this past week I was having trouble finding some interesting news to include for this week's blog. At the same time, scientists in South Africa were first confirming the alarming facts about what is now known as the omicron variant, and as a result I ended up with too much to cover this week. I hope I can help cut through some questions and inaccuracies circulating about this newest variant of concern.

I'll devote all of today's blog to omicron, it's that important, but I want to stress one point first. The government of South Africa has one of the premier pandemic monitoring systems in the world that has given the rest of the world a bit of a lead time to prepare in case omicron turns out to be the next game-changer in the pandemic. We'll probably never know the origins of this variant, but we already know a lot about it thanks to South Africa. Furthermore, much of what I'll be relaying below comes from a press conference in South Africa! Our sound-bite specialists in the US should take a page out of their book: let the actual scientists tell the story with their own words and graphs.

The Beginning of Omicron

As part of South Africa's surveillance system (set up in February 2020, by the way), epidemiologists noted a sharp increase in COVID-19 cases from districts in the province of Guateng. When samples taken November 12-20 were analyzed it became clear that this was a different variant containing many mutations in the spike protein genome. Some were well-known, others had not been described previously, but the main concern was the sheer number affecting a region of the genome that could dramatically change the behavior of the virus.

Looking at the gene diagrams from the press conference, I count 35 separate mutations in the spike protein gene of omicron. Scarier still is the fact that 10 of those are in the receptor binding domain (RBD), a key portion of the genome with regard to many phenotypic properties of SARS-CoV-2. By comparison, the delta variant has 2 mutations in the RBD. So, we need to look very carefully for evidence of how omicron behaves with regard to transmissibility, detectability, immune escape (evading immunity from natural infection and vaccines, poor response to monoclonal antibody or convalescent plasma therapy), and disease severity.

With respect to transmissibility, it is very likely that omicron has heightened ability to spread within a population. Preliminary data from Gauteng suggest a reproductive number of 1.93, not off the charts but pretty healthy. Note this estimate could change significantly because it is based on so few cases in just one country. More concerning is that in just a couple weeks it appears that omicron is replacing delta as the predominant strain in Gauteng and possibly in other provinces as well. The latter information comes from an interesting property of the variant that can be detected by PCR testing rather than waiting for the more technically-difficult and time-consuming method of whole genome sequencing (WGS). A new variant with increased transmissibility and multiple mutations that could affect other viral behavior makes omicron a great concern.

Omicron displays what is called "S gene dropout" where the S gene is so different that it tests negative for that gene in conventional PCR testing. Most PCR tests look at more than one gene, usually the nucleoprotein (N) and open reading frame (ORF) genes in addition to S. So, a specimen that is strongly positive for N or ORF but negative for S could very likely be omicron. As you might surmise, any PCR test that looks only at S gene will likely miss omicron altogether. Still, this property of omicron has allowed South African scientists to hypothesize that this new variant isn't just a fluke in one province but likely has extended across South Africa. What they are now seeing is this same S gene dropout in their newer cases elsewhere. WGS studies now in progress are needed to confirm this, and we should have those answers in the next several days.

Immune escape is a feared property of any variant. Delta expressed this to some degree; in general our vaccines and immune-based therapies don't work quite as well for delta as for the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, but they still provide decent protection from severe disease. At this point we just don't know if this is happening with omicron. We will know, likely within 1-2 weeks, how individual sera from people previously infected or vaccinated can neutralize omicron. It will take much longer to understand how innate immunity and the rest of the immune system behaves with this new variant. Every vaccine manufacturer is now scurrying to look at this and prepare new prototype vaccines in case they are needed for protection from omicron.

Does omicron cause more severe disease? That also will take a bit of time to know. In general, new outbreaks tend to affect younger and healthier populations; they are the ones more out and about to be exposed. So, we can be misled early on into thinking that this new variant is associated with milder disease. If it does spread more extensively we'll end up with a broader population infected and will have the answer to the question of disease severity. Unfortunately there isn't a reliable method to determine this in the laboratory.

What to Do Now?

In the US we may have a little lead time, although I'd be very surprised if we don't eventually learn that omicron is already here. First and foremost, we need to vaccinate the unvaccinated. Yes, it may be that the current vaccines turn out to be less effective against omicron, but based on everything we know about this virus it is clear that partial protection is far better than no protection. Second, everyone who is eligible for a booster should get one now. We do know that neutralizing antibody titers measured one month after a booster dose are very high; this can help overcome some slight decrease in effectiveness against omicron. Don't wait for a new vaccine tailored to omicron; this will take at least three months to see the light of day.

Third, we need to go back to those non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that have proved so successful in the past: masking especially for indoor activities, social distancing, good hand hygiene, and avoiding large gatherings. We already likely will have a spike in cases from Thanksgiving holiday activities; let's not aggravate an already problematic situation by ignoring NPIs.

Notice that I didn't mention travel bans among the NPIs. That's because they likely aren't effective in the long run. I guess one could argue that this ban on travel from 8 countries in southern Africa gives us another week or two to prepare for omicron.

I'll be watching immunization rates very closely the next couple of weeks; maybe we've learned our lesson and those who have been hesitant will come forward in larger numbers to start their vaccine series.

No One is Safe Until We All are Safe

The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center tracks, among other topics, vaccination coverage across the world. It's very clear where the haves and have-nots reside. In Africa only one country, the small island nation of Mauritius, has a fully vaccinated rate of 72% that is above the world average. South Africa's rate is listed as 24% (compare to US of 60% which is pretty dismal itself), but South Africa actually has more vaccine doses available than it does residents seeking vaccine. However, many African countries are in the single digits and do not have access to vaccines. I reiterate that we need to remove all barriers to COVID-19 vaccination across the world. We are running out of Greek letters, but more importantly we are losing lives needlessly.

As we enter our second pandemic Thanksgiving holiday, I'm reminded we have a lot to be thankful for compared to a year ago. This time last year the only people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 were the relatively small numbers of subjects randomized to receive vaccine in the clinical trials. Now we know that our approved and authorized vaccines are both safe and effective and clearly have put a dent in the pandemic in the US. Also, we now have treatment options including two oral medications making their way through the FDA evaluation process. Unlike last year, many families will be able to gather safely to celebrate the holiday. For those that do, please be safe both in your travel plans and in your infection control practices.

The Number Needed to Vaccinate

Last week the FDA authorized booster doses of mRNA vaccines, and subsequently the CDC/ACIP met on November 19 to make their recommendations. Now everyone 18 years of age and older can get a booster if desired.

I won't bother to recite all of the data presented, suffice to say the new experimental data submitted by Pfizer and Moderna consisted primarily of antibody titers one month after a booster dose, along with some limited safety information. I did want to mention the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) just to give you an idea of how many people benefit from boosters at different age groups. NNV is a spinoff of the term number needed to treat which is another way of looking at data beyond p values. It was hoped it would be useful in explaining risks and benefits to lay people, but that hasn't quite been realized.

Dr. Oliver's presentation at ACIP looked at NNV for different age groups, telling us how many people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional person being infected or hospitalized with COVID-19. Slides 37 and 38 in her presentation display the data in graphical form.

Speaking just about the Pfizer data (NNVs are higher - i.e. less beneficial - for Moderna due to longer persistence of antibody), for persons like me 65 years and older 481 would need to receive a booster dose to prevent 1 additional hospitalization over a 6 month period. That's not bad, but of course the numbers get higher in the younger age groups. For 50-64 NNV is 2051, then 3361 for 30-49 year-olds and finally 8738 for the 18-29 year age group, which is not a great benefit. Know that these are predictions based on modeling and a lot of assumptions, but I think they are useful numbers to help you understand the magnitude of booster benefit. If you are like me, you're getting a lot of questions from parents about booster doses for teenagers and younger. Don't worry too much about that now, boosters aren't likely to be a big help for them. We'll know more once the children in the clinical trials have 6-month antibody levels drawn, coming soon.

Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy

Boosters aren't the way out of this mess, we still need to vaccinate the unvaccinated. According to multiple polls, a core group of adults in the US aren't going to be convinced to choose vaccination no matter what data are explained. They have made a decision and only choose to look at information that supports that decision. However, a lot of unvaccinated folks are open to discussion. For them, a new toolkit from our surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is a good approach to try to correct misinformation. His advice to healthcare providers has 5 points: Listen, Empathize, Point to credible sources, Don't publicly shame, and Use inclusive language. It's a 22-page easy read, please take the time to look it over and decide how you can use it in your practice.

In a week without major pandemic news, it seems that the medical and lay media have found time to speculate about how this pandemic might end. Of course this is premature, we hardly know what to expect next month, let alone the years to come. It does give me an excuse to make some observations on current goings-on.

Medical Pundits Aren't Reading the Literature Carefully

I was flabbergasted when I learned of major news media outlets like NPR and Wall Street Journal giving voice to poorly-informed opinions related to COVID-19 vaccination of young children. In one, a mother who also is an adult infectious diseases physician expounded on her plan to deliberately spread out the interval between vaccine doses for her child because she had concluded a longer interval between doses resulted in longer-lasting immunity. In explaining her rationale, she seemed to have discounted the fact that she was guessing on extrapolation of studies in adults in entirely different settings and vaccines, not to mention the fact that only a 3-week interval has been studied for the Pfizer vaccine in younger children. We simply don't know what spreading out intervals will do, although this is certainly something to be studied particularly if we need to incorporate regular COVID-19 vaccination within the regular pediatric well-child visit schema. I absolutely support this mother's right to make decisions about her child's healthcare, but is it necessary to promote this poorly substantiated thought to the general public?

Worse was another piece where the authors cherry-picked superficial data from some pretty dense discussions at FDA and ACIP to reach similarly unfounded views regarding risks and benefits of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines. It appeared they hadn't read the source documents but rather looked at some slide presentations from Pfizer to point out presumed holes in CDC recommendations. A deeper dive to look at detailed briefing documents from FDA as well as discussion of 6 different vaccine risk/benefit scenarios, all concluding benefits exceed risks of vaccination in the 5-11 year-old age group, seems to refute their editorial points. Anyone could correctly accuse me of cherry-picking my discussions for this blog, but this is always informed by careful analysis of the original source documents.

Bottom line? Reading an opinion written by pundits in a respected media source doesn't guarantee you are reading an evidence-based conclusion.

I Will Be Safe When Everyone Else is Safe

Earlier in the pandemic we talked about herd immunity and ending SARS-CoV-2 transmission. That happy ending doesn't seem likely now; talk to a white-tailed deer in Iowa about it. Just don't get too close.

Many of us in the US are guilty of not giving enough voice to the global situation. We are all very pleased with availability of vaccines including boosters in our country, even though our immunization rates pale beside what less-resourced countries have accomplished. Let me point you to 2 sources to give you a view of the "pan" in this pandemic.

First is a great data source from Our World in Data. This site, updated daily, gives both quick and detailed looks at progress (or lack thereof) for COVID-19 vaccination across the globe. Note from the first map the horrific gaps in coverage in some countries, as well as the relatively poor showing in the resource-rich US. I probably don't need to remind you of how isolated outbreaks can become global problems very quickly. Remember Ebola?

Second is an article appearing recently in the BMJ that looked at life expectancy and premature mortality from the pandemic in 37 upper-middle and high income countries utilizing corrections for population age spectrum and other factors not often considered in this type of report. The US was second-worst to Russia in changes in life expectancy for populations, far worse than countries at the other end of the analysis such as Iceland, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand. Although all of those countries have differing circumstances, we can learn much from study of their mitigation strategies.

2

I am always bemoaning the fact that I don't have a reliable crystal ball, but maybe I found one in this article in the Atlantic. I took the time to read it, even though we've had a very busy week.

Vaccines for 5-11 year-olds

I'm sure you all know by now that the CDC/ACIP met on November 2 and did recommend Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for all 5 through 11 year-old children, noting that benefits clearly outweighed risks in this population. The presentations on November 2 largely mirrored what was presented the previous week at the FDA/VRBPAC meeting. This final seal of approval on FDA's EUA set in motion a flurry of activity for healthcare providers and parents to start the immunization process. Families can consult vaccines.gov to look for vaccination appointments nearby.

Less well known, the announcement also created a new round for the original trial participants. I spent much of November 3 and thereafter contacting parents of 5-11 year old children in our trial to let them know whether their child received vaccine or placebo. We then scheduled placebo recipients to come to our clinical trials unit to receive the first dose of the vaccine; we started this on November 4 and it is proceeding very well. Needless to say, this is an important and exciting time for these families who truly are the heroes we all thank for making it possible to provide vaccine to this age group. More to come in the coming months for the younger kids!

Another Oral Drug for COVID-19?

I always cringe when a pharmaceutical company announces significant new findings without releasing detailed data, but still I was happy to see Pfizer's apparent success for a new oral therapy, PF-07321332/ritonavir. A clinical trial of this agent for non-hospitalized high-risk adults with COVID-19 was halted early after a previously scheduled interim data analysis showed efficacy. In subjects who received drug or placebo within 5 days of symptom onset, the study drug group showed 6 of 607 recipients hospitalized with no deaths, versus 41/612 hospitalized and 10 deaths in the placebo group. We'll see what the FDA says about the data, but this could add to the treatment armamentarium eventually. Currently there are no pediatric trials for this agent in clinicaltrials.gov, nor any for the other oral agent, molnupiravir, that looked promising in recent reports. Molnupiravir is a ribonucleoside analog, while the Pfizer product consists of 2 protease inhibitors.