Skip to content

I spent most of my day December 10 trying to catch as much of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) discussion of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Although I had some interruptions and much multi-tasking, I was able to watch most of the proceedings, plus I did have a chance to review the detailed briefings from FDA and Pfizer as well as all of the presentation slides, posted online for everyone. Overall I came away feeling that we now have a very clear picture of the data, certainly enough to make decisions about this vaccine for the short term. Obviously they covered a ton of information, but I'll try to distill down to the essentials.

First, the overview and major take-home messages. As you may already know, this is a messenger RNA vaccine; the technology and science for making these vaccines has been around for quite a while and been tested in small numbers of humans for different purposes. However, this is the first mRNA vaccine to undergo widespread testing and presumably use in people. The cartoon below is from the Pfizer slides and I think shows you how this works. The modified mRNA is contained in lipid nanoparticles (LNP) and when injected ends up in cells where the mRNA instructs the cell to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The protein then triggers an inflammatory response such that the recipient makes antibody to the protein as well as memory T and B cells, then lies in wait to attack anything possessing the spike protein to enter the body.

In terms of safety, bottom line is that no serious concerns were raised in the 20,000+ individuals who received the vaccine (the other half of the subjects received saline placebo injections). Local side effects such as pain and swelling at the injection site occurred but nothing dramatic there. Systemic reactions like fatigue and chills were reported by a few percent of vaccine recipients; fever also occurred and usually of short duration. Side effects were more common after the second vaccine dose. Efficacy was as you have heard in news reports, in the mid-90s% range and much higher than I had hoped originally.

Now for the nuances and special populations. You've probably heard about the 2 vaccine recipients in England who may have experienced severe allergic reactions to the vaccine. Pfizer presented what little is known so far about this, and the best I can say is that it is still pretty murky. It didn't really sound like true anaphylaxis to me, but we'll just need to wait for more details, I'm hoping in the next few days. The current trial did not include individuals with severe allergy profiles, unlike the 2 British recipients this week.

A couple other caveats from the safety aspect. Regional lymphadenopathy occurred in 64 individuals in the vaccine group versus 6 in the control group, nothing worrisome but certainly plausible as an uncommon side effect. Bell's palsy occurred in 4 vaccine recipients versus none of the controls, but that level is within the rate of Bell's palsy that would be expected in the general population not receiving any vaccine, so difficult to know if any connection to the Pfizer vaccine.

The immune response to this vaccine is what is termed "Th-1 biased." That's a good thing, because in the past (e.g. an RSV vaccine trial in the 1970s), vaccines have the capability to produce an exaggerated immune response by the host when exposed to the virus. The immunology of that process is now understood, and a Th-1 biased immune profile protects against this. The few vaccine recipients in the Pfizer trial who did develop subsequent infection with SARS-CoV-2 did not show evidence of severe disease; in fact it was very mild.

In terms of special populations, the trial did not enroll immunocompromised individuals though this is planned for the future. They might need a different vaccine dose; this will take a while to figure out. Similarly, pregnant women were not enrolled. However, 23 women subsequently became pregnant, 12 in the vaccine group and 11 in the placebo group. The only known outcome so far is 2 women in the placebo group experienced a spontaneous abortion. The remainder of the pregnancies are still ongoing so we'll hear more about that later. In the meantime, the language of what to do about guidance for pregnant women will come from the FDA. My guess, and it's only that, is pregnancy will not be an absolute contraindication to vaccination and women will be directed to discuss individually with their physician to weigh benefits versus potential risks. In terms of racial and ethnic distribution, the study group included a little under 10% Black or African Americans (about 4000 total) and a little over 25% Hispanic/Latinx participants.

The final special group, the one this audience cares most about, is children. The bulk of the study participants were adults 18 years and older, with a small number of 16- and 17-year olds. Pfizer has begun enrolling younger subjects down to age 12 years, a total of 2000, but no data on that yet. If no problems in that population, they will move to the 5-11 year-old age group, perhaps around April 2021, but they may need to determine if vaccine dose should be different in this younger population. I was surprised that there was some hesitancy from VRBPAC voting members about recommending use of the vaccine for the 16-17 year age group but ultimately the panel voted to recommend authorizing the vaccine for ages 16 and older, with 17 votes in favor, 4 against, and 1 abstention.

Two other important caveats from the FDA meeting: first, extensive post-authorization tracking is planned and already in place. This is called pharmacovigilance and will use both existing and newer vaccine tracking measures. I am very reassured about the quality of this pharmacovigilance plan, and this is where we begin to get some idea of how long immunity from the vaccine will persist. Second is the tricky ethical issue of what to do about the placebo recipients from this trial. Should they all be offered vaccines, which would make some of the long-term follow-up more difficult to assess? It would be great to invite all the trial participants to participate in a "blind crossover" trial, where prior vaccine recipients receive 2 doses of placebo and prior placebo recipients get 2 doses of the vaccine, everyone still remaining blinded but now everyone has the benefit from the vaccine. However, the logistic difficulties of performing what is essentially a new clinical trial for 40,000+ people is significant.

Next steps for this vaccine include what we hope will be a statement the evening of December 11 from FDA regarding recommendation for emergency use authorization. ACIP/CDC meetings are scheduled the afternoons of December 11 and 13, culminating in a vote to decide on whether the data warrant a recommendation for going forward assuming FDA recommends authorization. Then, on December 17, FDA VRBPAC will meet to discuss the Moderna vaccine data, with meeting materials to be posted soon on the web link earlier in this post.

In closing, I need to answer the many questions I've received from friends and colleagues: if offered, will I choose to receive this vaccine? My answer is unquestionably yes. Although we don't have long-term follow up of recipients, most significant side effects from vaccines appear in the first 6 weeks after immunization, and we have lots of information about that time period. Of course we don't know about any extremely rare side effects, but we never have that information about new drugs or vaccines until they are in widespread use. I'm perhaps a bit biased ahead of time in favor of vaccination: my age and occupation puts me in a high-risk group, I'm very familiar with the FDA review process and know several of the reviewers (no, I don't have any inside information about what they are doing with this or any other vaccine), and it turns out one of the senior vice presidents at Pfizer who presented most of the clinical data is an old friend of mine. I don't think any of these potential biases is coloring my decision, however.

Stay tuned for more updates!

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.

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.