Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV’ Category

COVID-19 Sequel: Neurological Impact of Social isolation been linked to poorer physical and mental health

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 4/13/2021

Toward Understanding COVID-19 Recovery: National Institutes of Health Workshop on Postacute COVID-19

 

Abstract

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has swept the globe, resulting in an enormous worldwide burden of infection and mortality. However, the additional toll resulting from long-term consequences of the pandemic has yet to be tallied. Heterogeneous disease manifestations and syndromes are now recognized among some persons after their initial recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, representing in the broadest sense a failure to return to a baseline state of health after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. On 3 to 4 December 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in collaboration with other Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health, convened a virtual workshop to summarize existing knowledge on postacute COVID-19 and to identify key knowledge gaps regarding this condition.

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has swept the globe, resulting in more than 113 million persons infected and 2.5 million deaths (1). However, the additional toll resulting from long-term consequences of the pandemic has yet to be tallied. Heterogeneous disease manifestations and syndromes are now recognized among some persons after their initial recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although a standardized case definition does not yet exist for these manifestations, in the broadest sense they represent a failure to return to a baseline state of health after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. The various terms used to describe this condition have included postacute (or late) sequelae of COVID-19, post-COVID condition or syndrome, long COVID, and long-haul COVID. In this article, we use the general umbrella term of “postacute COVID-19” to refer to multiple disease processes that may have varying degrees of overlap (including but not limited to sequelae of critical illness and hospitalization in persons with COVID-19) and the entity of long COVID, which refers to prolonged health abnormalities in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 who may or may not have required hospitalization. Of note, there is not yet a consensus on terminology, which will likely evolve with a better understanding of this condition.

Reported symptoms are wide-ranging and may involve nearly all organ systems, with fatigue, dyspnea, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, and depression often described (2–5). Although abnormalities in imaging studies and functional testing have been reported, the long-term clinical significance of some of these findings is not yet clear (367). Postacute manifestations of COVID-19 have been seen in persons of all demographic groups and include reports of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (89). Although the epidemiology of the diverse manifestations of postacute COVID-19 is not yet known, the expansive global burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests that the potential public health effects of postacute COVID-19 are significant if even a small proportion of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection have prolonged recovery or do not return to their baseline health.

On 3 to 4 December 2020, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in collaboration with other Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health, convened a virtual workshop (available via videocast at https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=38878 and https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=38879) to summarize existing knowledge on postacute COVID-19 and to identify key knowledge gaps. The speakers and participants included epidemiologists, clinicians, clinical and basic scientists, and members of the affected community. The videocast was open to the general public and had more than 1200 registered participants.

SOURCE

UPDATED on 4/7/2021

‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’: COVID-19 Brain Health Fallout Is Real, Severe

Sarah Edmonds

April 07, 2021

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

START QUOTE

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the six months after they contract the virus — a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to-date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one third were diagnosed with at least one of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Oxford, United Kingdom, told a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a US database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

High Rate of Neurologic, Psychiatric Disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non-COVID respiratory infections over the same period. 

SOURCE

The Effects of Loneliness and Our Brain function: poorer physical and mental health

One review of the science of loneliness found that people with stronger social relationships have a 50 per cent increased likelihood of survival over a set period of time compared with those with weaker social connections. Other studies have linked loneliness to cardiovascular disease, inflammation, and depression.

For loneliness researchers the pandemic has provided an unprecedented natural experiment in the impact that social isolation might have on our brains. As millions of people across the world emerge from months of reduced social contact, a new neuroscience of loneliness is starting to figure out why social relationships are so crucial to our health.

Neural basis of Emotion

Desire for Social Interaction

Are there neurological differences between people who experience short-term isolation and those who have been isolated for long stretches of time? What kinds of social interactions satisfy our social cravings? Is a video call enough to quell our need for social contact, or do some people require an in-person connection to really feel satiated?

START QUOTE

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University in the US and the author of two major studies on social isolation and health. “We have a lot of data that very robustly shows that both isolation and loneliness put us at increased risk for premature mortality—and conversely, that being socially connected is protective and reduces our risk,” she says.

START QUOTE

“Trying to investigate isolation or loneliness is not as straightforward in humans. In humans, being lonely is not necessarily correlated with how many people are around you,” says Tomova. She is particularly interested in the impact that the pandemic might have had on young people whose cognitive and social skills are still developing. “I think we will see potentially some differences in how their social behavior developed or things like that,” she says. But as is always the case in the uncertain world of loneliness research, the opposite could be true. “It could also be that most people are fine, because maybe social media does fulfill our social needs really well.”

SOURCE

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lockdown-loneliness-neuroscience

The Weird Science of Loneliness and Our Brains – Social isolation as been linked to poorer physical and mental health, but scientists are finally starting to understand its neurological impact

Read Full Post »

T cells recognize recent SARS-CoV-2 variants

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent individuals target conserved epitopes from multiple prominent SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants 

Andrew D ReddAlessandra NardinHassen KaredEvan M BlochAndrew PekoszOliver LaeyendeckerBrian AbelMichael FehlingsThomas C QuinnAaron A R TobianOpen Forum Infectious Diseases, ofab143, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab143Published: 30 March 2021 Article history

Abstract

This study examined whether CD8+ T-cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent individuals (n=30) potentially maintain recognition of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants (n=45 mutations assessed). Only one mutation found in B.1.351-Spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.

Key words:

CD8+ T cellSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Convalescent patients

Topic: 

SOURCE

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab143/6189113

Original paper:

Andrew D Redd, Alessandra Nardin, Hassen Kared, Evan M Bloch, Andrew Pekosz, Oliver Laeyendecker, Brian Abel, Michael Fehlings, Thomas C Quinn, Aaron A R Tobian, CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent individuals target conserved epitopes from multiple prominent SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2021;, ofab143, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab143

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

T cells recognize recent SARS-CoV-2 variants

Healthy Human T CellScanning electron micrograph of a human T lymphocyte (also called a T cell) from the immune system of a healthy donor. NIAID

What

When variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) emerged in late 2020, concern arose that they might elude protective immune responses generated by prior infection or vaccination, potentially making re-infection more likely or vaccination less effective. To investigate this possibility, researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and colleagues analyzed blood cell samples from 30 people who had contracted and recovered from COVID-19 prior to the emergence of virus variants. They found that one key player in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2—the CD8+ T cell—remained active against the virus.

The research team was led by NIAID’s Andrew Redd, Ph.D., and included scientists from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Immunomics-focused company, ImmunoScape.

The investigators asked whether CD8+ T cells in the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, infected with the initial virus, could still recognize three SARS-CoV-2 variants: B.1.1.7, which was first detected in the United Kingdom; B.1.351, originally found in the Republic of South Africa; and B.1.1.248, first seen in Brazil. Each variant has mutations throughout the virus, and, in particular, in the region of the virus’ spike protein that it uses to attach to and enter cells. Mutations in this spike protein region could make it less recognizable to T cells and neutralizing antibodies, which are made by the immune system’s B cells following infection or vaccination.

Although details about the exact levels and composition of antibody and T-cell responses needed to achieve immunity to SARS-CoV-2 are still unknown, scientists assume that strong and broad responses from both antibodies and T cells are required to mount an effective immune response.  CD8+ T cells limit infection by recognizing parts of the virus protein presented on the surface of infected cells and killing those cells.

In their study of recovered COVID-19 patients, the researchers determined that SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T-cell responses remained largely intact and could recognize virtually all mutations in the variants studied. While larger studies are needed, the researchers note that their findings suggest that the T cell response in convalescent individuals, and most likely in vaccinees, are largely not affected by the mutations found in these three variants, and should offer protection against emerging variants.   

Optimal immunity to SARS-Cov-2 likely requires strong multivalent T-cell responses in addition to neutralizing antibodies and other responses to protect against current SARS-CoV-2 strains and emerging variants, the authors indicate. They stress the importance of monitoring the breadth, magnitude and durability of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in recovered and vaccinated individuals as part of any assessment to determine if booster vaccinations are needed. 

SOURCE

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/t-cells-recognize-recent-sars-cov-2-variants

Read Full Post »

COVID-related financial losses at Mass General Brigham

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Based on

Mass General Brigham reports COVID-related financial losses not as bad as expected

By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey Globe Staff,Updated December 11, 2020, 3:02 p.m.

START QUOTE

The state’s largest hospital system on Friday reported the worst financial loss in its history while fighting the COVID-19 pandemic — but still ended the fiscal year in better shape than expected.

Mass General Brigham, formerly known as Partners HealthCare, lost $351 million on operations in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. In 2019, the system recorded a gain of $382 million.

The loss, however, is not as great as projected, thanks in part to an infusion of federal aid and patients returning to hospitals in large numbers after the first COVID surge receded.

“2020 is like no other year,” said Peter Markell, chief financial officer at Mass General Brigham, which includes Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and several community hospitals. “At the end of the day, we came out of this better than we thought we might.”

Total revenue for the year remained relatively stable at about $14 billion.

When the pandemic first hit Massachusetts in March, hospitals across the state suddenly experienced sharp drops in revenue because they canceled so much non-COVID care to respond to the crisis at hand. They also faced new costs related to COVID, including the personal protective equipment needed to keep health care workers safe from infection.

Federal aid helped to make up much of the losses, including $546 million in grant money that went to Mass General Brigham. The nonprofit health system also slashed capital expenses in half, by about $550 million, and temporarily froze employee wages and cut their retirement benefits.

Among the unusual new costs for Mass General Brigham this year was the expense of building a field hospital, Boston Hope, at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The project cost $15 million to $20 million, Markell said, and Mass General Brigham is working to recoup those costs from government agencies.

The second surge of COVID, now underway, could hit hospitals’ bottom lines again, though Markell expects a smaller impact this time. One reason is because hospitals are trying to treat most of the patients who need care for conditions other than COVID even while treating growing numbers of COVID patients. In the spring, hospitals canceled vastly more appointments and procedures in anticipation of the first wave of COVID.

Mass General Brigham hospitals were treating more than 300 COVID patients on Friday, among the more than 1,600 hospitalized across the state.

Steve Walsh, president of the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association, said hospitals across the state will need more federal aid as they continue battling COVID into the new year.

“The financial toll of COVID-19 has been felt by every hospital and health care organization in the Commonwealth,” he said. “Those challenges will continue during 2021.”


Priyanka Dayal McCluskey can be reached at priyanka.mccluskey@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @priyanka_dayal.

END QUOTE

SOURCE

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/11/business/mass-general-brigham-reports-covid-related-financial-losses-better-than-expected/?p1=Article_Inline_Related_Box

Integration of Mass General Hospital and Brigham Women’s Hospital was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

BASED on

At Mass General Brigham, a sweeping effort to unify hospitals and shed old rivalries

Executives say greater cooperation is necessary to stay relevant in a dynamic and competitive health care industry. But the aggressive push to integrate is stirring tensions and sowing discontent among doctors and hospital leaders.

By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey and Larry Edelman Globe Staff and Globe Columnist,Updated March 27, 2021, 6:15 p.m.125

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/27/business/mass-general-brigham-sweeping-effort-unify-hospitals-shed-old-rivalries/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter

START QUOTE

The work of integration was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As patients flooded hospitals last spring, Mass General Brigham — not each of its individual hospitals — set pandemic policies, from what kind of personal protective equipment health care providers should wear, to which visitors were allowed inside hospitals, to how employees would be paid if they were out sick with the virus.

During the winter surge of COVID, Mass General Brigham officials closely tracked beds across their system and transferred patients daily from one hospital to another to ensure that no one facility became overwhelmed.

And, in the early months of the pandemic, the company dropped the name Partners, which meant little to patients, and unveiled a new brand to reflect the strength of its greatest assets, MGH and the Brigham.

Officials at the nonprofit health system have instructeddepartment heads across their hospitals to coordinate better, so, for example, if a patient needs surgery at the Brigham but is facing a long wait, they can refer that patient to another site within Mass General Brigham.

Some executives want patients, eventually, to be able to go online and book appointments at any Mass General Brigham facility, as easily as they make reservations for dinner or a hotel.

Walls described it like this: “How do we put things together that make things better and easier for patients, and leave alone things that are better where they are?

“We’re not going to push things together that don’t fit together,” he said.

And yet the aggressive pursuit of “systemness,” as executives call it, is taking a toll. Physicians and hospital leaders are struggling with the loss of control over their institutions and worried that the new era of top-down management threatens to homogenize a group of hospitals with different cultures and identities.

Veteran physicians and leaders have been surprised and upset by the power shift that is stripping them of the ability to make key decisions and unhappy with abrupt changes they feel are occurring with little discussion. Most are uncomfortable sharing their concerns publicly.

“If you’re not on the train, you’re getting run over by the train,” said one former Mass General Brigham executive who requested anonymity in orderto speak openly. “It’s not an environment to invite debate.”

Amid the restructuring, senior executives are departing in droves. They include the CEO of the MGH physicians group, Dr. Timothy Ferris; Brigham and Women’s president Dr. Elizabeth Nabel; chief financial officer of the system, Peter Markell; Cooley Dickinson Hospital president Joanne Marqusee; and president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, David Storto.

Some also fear the internal discord could hinder Mass General Brigham’s ability to attract talented leaders.

Top executives acknowledge there is angst — “Change is hard,” Klibanski said — but are pushing ahead.

MORE

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/27/business/mass-general-brigham-sweeping-effort-unify-hospitals-shed-old-rivalries/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter

Read Full Post »

The WHO team is expected to soon publish a 300-page final report on its investigation, after scrapping plans for an interim report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 — the new coronavirus responsible for killing 2.7 million people globally

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 4/1/2021

Coronavirus: More work needed to rule out China lab leak theory says WHO

START QUOTE

The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has said further investigation is needed to conclusively rule out that Covid-19 emerged from a laboratory in China.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that although a lab leak was the least likely cause, more research was needed.

The US and other countries have criticised China for failing to provide the WHO with sufficient data.

Beijing has always dismissed the allegations of a virus leak.

A report by WHO and Chinese experts released on Tuesday, said the lab leak explanation was highly unlikely and the virus had probably jumped from bats to humans via another intermediary animal.

China has yet to respond to the WHO’s latest statement.

‘All hypothesis on the table’

However the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory “requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts,” Dr Tedros said on Tuesday.

“Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table,” he added.

The virus was first detected in Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province in late 2019. An international team of experts travelled to to the city in January to probe the origins of the virus.

The team investigated all possibilities, including one theory that the virus had originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute is the world’s leading authority on the collection, storage and study of bat coronaviruses.

International criticism

In response to the WHO report, the US and 13 allies including South Korea, Australia and the UK voiced concern over the findings and urged China to provide “full access” to experts.

The statement said the mission to Wuhan was “significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples”.

“Scientific missions like these should be able to do their work under conditions that produce independent and objective recommendations and findings.”

The group pledged to work together with the WHO.

Former US President Donald Trump was among those who supported the theory that the virus might have escaped from a lab.

WHO investigation team leader, Peter Ben Embarek said on Tuesday his team had felt under political pressure, including from outside China but said he was never pressed to remove anything from the team’s final report.

He also confirmed his team had found no evidence that any laboratories in Wuhan were involved in the outbreak.

MORE …

SOURCE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246

@@@@

Ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield believes COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab

By Lia Eustachewich

March 26, 2021 | 10:03am | Updated

START QUOTE

The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes the virus that causes COVID-19 escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China, according to a new interview.

Robert Redfield told CNN on Friday that it was his “opinion” that SARS-CoV-2 — the new coronavirus responsible for killing 2.7 million people globally — did not evolve naturally.

“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory — escaped,” said Redfield, who led the CDC during the height of the pandemic. “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.”

Researchers believe the deadly and highly transmissible strain of coronavirus behind the global pandemic mutated from a virus that infects animals — namely, bats — to one that sickens humans.

But some believe the virus was somehow released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which is the only lab in China authorized to study the most dangerous known pathogens, according to Axios.

“It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker. … That’s not implying any intentionality,” Redfield said. “It’s my opinion, right? But I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology.

“I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and at that moment in time, that the virus came to the human, became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity for human-to-human transmission.”

Redfield said usually when a virus jumps from animals to humans, “it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-to-human transmission.”

SOURCE

START QUOTE

What they’re saying: “I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory. Escaped. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out,” Redfield told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta.

  • “It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker. … That’s not implying any intentionality. It’s my opinion, right? But I am a virologist. I have spent my life in virology,” he continued.
  • “I do not believe this somehow came from a bat to a human and at that moment in time that the virus came to the human, became one of the most infectious viruses that we know in humanity for human-to-human transmission.”

Between the lines: Lab accidents in the U.S. are not especially rare, as USA Today’s Alison Young noted in a recent opinion piece arguing why the Wuhan lab theory cannot be ruled out. The CDC itself experienced a possible contamination in a lab where it was making COVID-19 test kits early in the pandemic.

What to watch: The WHO team is expected to soon publish a 300-page final report on its investigation, after scrapping plans for an interim report amid mounting tensions between the U.S. and China.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

FDA emergency use authorization would bring the public a third vaccine for the novel coronavirus – J&J single vaccine – Authorized on 2/28/2021

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

J&J’s Covid-19 vaccine gets vote of confidence from FDA advisory panel

The committee voted 22-0 on the question of whether the benefits of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine outweigh its risks. FDA emergency use authorization would bring the public a third vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

The U.S. is one step closer to making available another Covid-19 vaccine after a panel of experts voted unanimously Friday to recommend emergency use authorization for a shot developed by Johnson & Johnson.

The independent panel, comprised of mostly physicians, voted 22-0 to support the vaccine with no one abstaining. These votes aren’t binding on the FDA, but the agency often follows the recommendations of its panels. A decision could come as early as this weekend. The two Covid vaccines currently cleared for emergency use received their authorizations the day after their respective advisory panel meetings.

Top ArticlesFDA authorizes third Covid-19 vaccine; J&J pledges 20M shots by month’s end

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine would offer an alternative to the ones currently available from the Pfizer and BioNtech alliance, and Moderna. Those messenger RNA vaccines must be distributed and stored at ultra-cold temperatures, then thawed before use. Those shots are given as two doses, weeks apart. The J&J vaccine can be kept at refrigerator temperatures. Another key difference is that the J&J jab requires a single shot. Together, those features will make the J&J vaccine easier to distribute to more people in more places through distribution channels that are already in place.

Panel members expressed support for the J&J vaccine, saying that the safety and efficacy data supported its authorization. But panelists also cautioned the public against picking vaccine favorites.

“It’s important that people do not think one vaccine is better than another,” said Cody Meissner, an infectious disease expert and professor of pediatrics at the Tufts University School of Medicine. “There is no preference for one vaccine over another and all vaccines work with what appears to be equal safety and equal efficacy as of this time.”

 

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 Guidance for Industry FEBRUARY 2021

Final
Docket Number:
FDA-2020-D-1137
Issued by:
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

FDA plays a critical role in protecting the United States (U.S.) from threats such as emerging infectious diseases, including the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  FDA is committed to providing timely guidance to support response efforts to this pandemic.

FDA is issuing this guidance to provide sponsors of requests for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines with recommendations regarding the data and information needed to support the issuance of an EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) for an investigational vaccine to prevent COVID-19 for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

SOURCE

 

FDA Statement on Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting

The following is attributed to Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. and Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research


NEWS PROVIDED BY

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Feb 26, 2021, 18:50 ET


SILVER SPRING, Md.Feb. 26, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Following today’s positive advisory committee meeting outcome regarding the Janssen Biotech Inc. COVID-19 Vaccine, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has informed the sponsor that it will rapidly work toward finalization and issuance of an emergency use authorization. The agency has also notified our federal partners involved in vaccine allocation and distribution so they can execute their plans for timely vaccine distribution.

Additional Resources:

Media Contact: FDA Office of Media Affairs, 301-796-4540
Consumer InquiriesEmail or 888-INFO-FDA

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

Rise of a trio of mutated viruses hints at an increase in transmissibility, speeding the virus’ leaps from one host to the next

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

“We have uncontrolled viral spread in much of the world,” says Adam Lauring, an infectious disease physician and virologist at the University of Michigan. “So the virus has a lot of opportunity to evolve.”

“The variants may be more transmissible, but physics has not changed,” says Müge Çevik, an infectious disease physician at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

Many changes don’t affect the virus’ function, and some even harm SARS-CoV-2’s ability to multiply, but they keep happening. “Viruses mutate; that’s what they do,” says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale School of Medicine in Connecticut.

U.K., Brazil, and South Africa. In the United Kingdom, variant B.1.1.7 likely drove the region’s record-setting spike of COVID-19 cases in January. The variant is now circulating in more than 60 countries, including the United States—and projections suggest it will become the most common virus variety in the U.S. by mid-March.

An independently arising lineage called P.1 might also be driving a wave of cases in Manaus, Brazil, where it accounted for nearly half of new COVID-19 infections in December. On January 26, Minnesotan officials reported the first U.S. case of P.1 in a resident who previously traveled to Brazil. And a third lineage raising alarms, known as B.1.351, was first spotted amid a December wave of infections in South Africa. On January 28, the first known U.S. cases of the variant were reported in South Carolina.

One specific mutation, known as N501Y, popped up independently in all three variants, suggesting it could provide an advantage to the virus. “That’s a sign that there is natural selection going on,” Lauring says. The N501Y mutation affects the virus’ spike protein, which is the key it uses to unlock entry into its host’s cells.

Another possibility is that new variants cause people who are infected to harbor more copies of the virus. This results in greater viral “shedding” in airborne droplets spewed when people talk, sing, cough, and breath.

mutations in 501Y.V2 could diminish the effectiveness of antibodies in the blood of people previously infected with the virus. But understanding whether that could lead to more re-infections, or if it could affect vaccine efficacy.

Dramatically scale up production of high-filtration masks for the general public.

Based on:

Why some coronavirus variants are more contagious‹and how we can stop them

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2021/01/why-some-coronavirus-variants-are-more-contagious/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=SpecialEdition_20210129

Read Full Post »

A Platform called VirtualFlow: Discovery of Pan-coronavirus Drugs help prepare the US for the Next Coronavirus Pandemic

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

ARTICLE|ONLINE NOW, 102021

A multi-pronged approach targeting SARS-CoV-2 proteins using ultra-large virtual screening

Open AccessPublished:January 04, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.102021

 

The work was made possible in large part by about $1 million in cloud computing hours awarded by Google through a COVID-19 research grant program.

The work reported, below was sponsored by

  • a Google Cloud COVID-19 research grant. Funding was also provided by the
  • Fondation Aclon,
  • National Institutes of Health (GM136859),
  • Claudia Adams Barr Program for Innovative Basic Cancer Research,
  • Math+ Berlin Mathematics Research Center,
  • Templeton Religion Trust (TRT 0159),
  • U.S. Army Research Office (W911NF1910302), and
  • Chleck Family Foundation

 

Harvard University, AbbVie form research alliance to address emergent viral diseases

This article is part of Harvard Medical School’s continuing coverage of medicine, biomedical research, medical education and policy related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the disease COVID-19.

Harvard University and AbbVie today announced a $30 million collaborative research alliance, launching a multi-pronged effort at Harvard Medical School to study and develop therapies against emergent viral infections, with a focus on those caused by coronaviruses and by viruses that lead to hemorrhagic fever.

The collaboration aims to rapidly integrate fundamental biology into the preclinical and clinical development of new therapies for viral diseases that address a variety of therapeutic modalities. HMS has led several large-scale, coordinated research efforts launched at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A key element of having a strong R&D organization is collaboration with top academic institutions, like Harvard Medical School, to develop therapies for patients who need them most,” said Michael Severino, vice chairman and president of AbbVie. “There is much to learn about viral diseases and the best way to treat them. By harnessing the power of collaboration, we can develop new therapeutics sooner to ensure the world is better prepared for future potential outbreaks.”

“The cataclysmic nature of the COVID-19 pandemic reminds us how vital it is to be prepared for the next public health crisis and how critical collaboration is on every level—across disciplines, across institutions and across national boundaries,” said George Q. Daley, dean of Harvard Medical School. “Harvard Medical School, as the nucleus of an ecosystem of fundamental discovery and therapeutic translation, is uniquely positioned to propel this transformative research alongside allies like AbbVie.”

AbbVie will provide $30 million over three years and additional in-kind support leveraging AbbVie’s scientists, expertise and facilities to advance collaborative research and early-stage development efforts across five program areas that address a variety of therapeutic modalities:

  • Immunity and immunopathology—Study of the fundamental processes that impact the body’s critical immune responses to viruses and identification of opportunities for therapeutic intervention.

Led by Ulirich Von Andrian, the Edward Mallinckrodt Jr. Professor of Immunopathology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and program leader of basic immunology at the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, and Jochen Salfeld, vice president of immunology and virology discovery at AbbVie.

  • Host targeting for antiviral therapies—Development of approaches that modulate host proteins in an effort to disrupt the life cycle of emergent viral pathogens.

Led by Pamela Silver, the Elliot T. and Onie H. Adams Professor of Biochemistry and Systems Biology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS, and Steve Elmore, vice president of drug discovery science and technology at AbbVie.

  • Antibody therapeutics—Rapid development of therapeutic antibodies or biologics against emergent pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, to a preclinical or early clinical stage.

Led by Jonathan Abraham, assistant professor of microbiology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS, and by Jochen Salfeld, vice president of immunology and virology discovery at AbbVie.

  • Small molecules—Discovery and early-stage development of small-molecule drugs that would act to prevent replication of known coronaviruses and emergent pathogens.

Led by Mark Namchuk, executive director of therapeutics translation at HMS and senior lecturer on biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS, and Steve Elmore, vice president of drug discovery science and technology at AbbVie.

  • Translational development—Preclinical validation, pharmacological testing, and optimization of leading approaches, in collaboration with Harvard-affiliated hospitals, with program leads to be determined.

SOURCE

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/joining-forces

 

 

A Screen Door Opens

Virtual screen finds compounds that could combat SARS-CoV-2

This article is part of Harvard Medical School’s continuing coverage of medicine, biomedical research, medical education, and policy related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the disease COVID-19.

Less than a year ago, Harvard Medical School researchers and international colleagues unveiled a platform called VirtualFlow that could swiftly sift through more than 1 billion chemical compounds and identify those with the greatest promise to become disease-specific treatments, providing researchers with invaluable guidance before they embark on expensive and time-consuming lab experiments and clinical trials.

Propelled by the urgent needs of the pandemic, the team has now pushed VirtualFlow even further, conducting 45 screens of more than 1 billion compounds each and ranking the compounds with the greatest potential for fighting COVID-19—including some that are already approved by the FDA for other diseases.

“This was the largest virtual screening effort ever done,” said VirtualFlow co-developer Christoph Gorgulla, research fellow in biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology in the labs of Haribabu Arthanari and Gerhard Wagner in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.

The results were published in January in the open-access journal iScience.

The team searched for compounds that bind to any of 15 proteins on SARS-CoV-2 or two human proteins, ACE2 and TMPRSS2, known to interact with the virus and enable infection.

Researchers can now explore on an interactive website the 1,000 most promising compounds from each screen and start testing in the lab any ones they choose.

The urgency of the pandemic and the sheer number of candidate compounds inspired the team to release the early results to the scientific community.

“No one group can validate all the compounds as quickly as the pandemic demands,” said Gorgulla, who is also an associate of the Department of Physics at Harvard University. “We hope that our colleagues can collectively use our results to identify potent inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2.

In most cases, it will take years to find out whether a compound is safe and effective in humans. For some of the compounds, however, researchers have a head start.

Hundreds of the most promising compounds that VirtualFlow flagged are already FDA approved or being studied in clinical or preclinical trials for other diseases. If researchers find that one of those compounds proves effective against SARS-CoV-2 in lab experiments, the data their colleagues have already collected could save time establishing safety in humans.

Other compounds among VirtualFlow’s top hits are currently being assessed in clinical trials for COVID-19, including several drugs in the steroid family. In those cases, researchers could build on the software findings to investigate how those drug candidates work at the molecular level—something that’s not always clear even when a drug works well.

It shows what we’re capable of computationally during a pandemic.

Hari Arthanari

SOURCE

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/screen-door-opens?utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_term=field_news_item_1&utm_content=HMNews02012021

Read Full Post »

Inflammation and potential links with the microbiome: Mechanisms of infection by SARS-CoV-2

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Mechanisms of infection by SARS-CoV-2, inflammation and potential links with the microbiome

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.2217/fvl-2020-0310

Human coronaviruses (HCoVs) were first isolated from patients with the common cold in the 1960s [1–3]. Seven HCoVs known to cause disease in humans have since been identified: HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus and the novel SARS-CoV-2 [4]. The latter was identified after a spike in cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China during December 2019 and was initially named novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) [5,6]. The virus was renamed SARS-CoV-2 according to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses classification criteria due to its genomic closeness to SARS-CoV; the disease caused by this virus was named coronavirus disease (COVID-19) according to the WHO criteria for naming emerging diseases [7]. SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the genera Betacoronavirus and shares a different degree of genomic similarity with the other two epidemic coronaviruses: SARS-CoV (∼79%) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (∼50%) [8].

COVID-19 has caused considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide and has become the central phenomenon that is shaping our current societies. Human-to-human transmission is the main route of spread of the virus, mainly through direct contact, respiratory droplets and aerosols [9–12]. Management of COVID-19 has been extremely challenging due to its high infectivity, lack of effective therapeutics and potentially small groups of individuals (i.e., asymptomatic or mild disease) rapidly spreading the disease [13–17]. Although research describing COVID-19 and the mechanisms of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and its pathogenesis has expanded rapidly, there is still much to be learnt. Important gaps in knowledge which remain to be elucidated are the dynamic and complex interactions between the virus and the host’s immune system, as well as the potential interspecies communications occurring between ecological niches encompassing distinct microorganisms in both healthy individuals and persons living with chronic diseases, and how these interactions could determine or modulate disease progression and outcomes.

In this review, we describe recent insights into these topics, as well as remaining questions whose answers will allow us to understand how interactions between the virus, the immune system and microbial components could possibly be related to disease states in patients with COVID-19, as well as existing studies of the microbiome in patients with COVID-19.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »

Mysteries of COVID Smell Loss

Reporter: Irina  Robu, PhD

When Covid-19 patients have smell loss it tends to be sudden and severe. They are usually don’t have a blocked, stuffy or runny nose – most people with coronavirus can still breathe freely.  Since the epidemic started in march, an estimated of 80 percent of people with COVID-19 have experience smell disturbances in addition to loss of taste and the ability to smell chemical irritants. Research has shown that smell loss is common in people with COVID-19 disease, the reason why researchers and doctors have recommended to use a diagnostic test to determine if a patient has COVID-19.

Yet, the mystery is how the new coronavirus robs patients of their senses. During the early days of the epidemic, physicians and researchers thought that COVID related loss of smell might signal that the virus makes its way into the brain through the nose, where it can do the most severe damage. According to Sandeep Robert Data, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School, the research data showed that the primary source is the in the nose, but more specifically in the nasal epithelium. It looks like the virus attacks the cells responsible for registering odors rather than attacking neurons directly.  

It is well known that  olfactory neurons do not have angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which permit the virus entry to cells, on their surface. But sustentacular cells, which provide support for  olfactory neurons are scattered with the receptors. These cells preserve the important  balance of salt ions in the mucus that neurons rest on on to send signals to the brain. If that balance is disturbed, it could lead to a closure of neuronal signaling and loss of smell.

The sustentacular cells correspondingly deliver the metabolic and physical support necessary to keep the fingerlike cilia on the olfactory neurons wherever receptors that detect odors are disturbed. Nicolas Meunier, a neuroscientist at the Paris-Saclay University in France determined that disruption of the olfactory epithelium might explain the loss of smell. Yet, it remains unclear if the damage done by the virus or because it invades immune cells.

Since COVID-19 doesn’t cause nasal congestion, researchers have found a few clues about the loss of smell. Taste receptor cells, which detect chemicals in the saliva and sends signals to the brain do not have ACE receptors. They don’t necessarily  get infected by COVID-19, but other support cells in the tongue carry the receptor.

Researchers determined that more clues on  to how the virus obliterates smell. However, some patients have seen that after five months the ability to smell has returned but not as great as expected. That news is welcomed for patients that have suffered loss of smell due to the COVID-19 virus, yet apprehensions about long term loss of smell is a large cause of concern.

SOURCE

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysteries-of-covid-smell-loss-finally-yield-some-answers1/

Read Full Post »

Allocation and Prioritization of Vaccine Dose Administration Schedules: Cover more people or Adhere to Immunization Protocol

Curators:

This curation has four parts:

Part 1:

Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.

  • By Michael Segal, MD, PhD

Part 2:

Expert Opinion by Clinical Authority in Practice of Cardiac Imaging:

  • The Voice of Dr. Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC

Part 3:

Expert Opinion by Scientific Authority in Population Biology

  • The Voice of Prof. Marcus W. Feldman, PhD

Part 4:

Summary

  • The Voices of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Introduction

Aviva Lev-Ari
@AVIVA1950

We agree the protocol should not be changed

Quote Tweet

Pearl Freier
@PearlF
FDA’s Peter Marks explained why the 2 dose regimen for Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine shouldn’t be changed to 1 dose in attempt to reach more patients while there’s limited supply. Aside from 95% effectiveness w/ 2 dose regimen based on clinical data, he said no one knows how long 1/n

Pearl Freier
@PearlF

Replying to

1 dose would be effective for & no one knows if only given 1 dose if patient would get an immune response that “would just dwindle” “And we know that can happen because we know already that people who get very mild covid-19 tend to lose their immune responses pretty quickly.” 2/n

Pearl Freier
@PearlF

We need to make sure that those who get the vaccine regimen are people who know they’ve gotten that protection [95% effective]. Because that’s something we know, whereas the other [1 dose] is conjecture. And I would hate for people to change their behavior on the basis of 3/n

Pearl Freier
@PearlF

one dose of vaccine where we don’t know what’s really happening.” Peter Marks/FDA said (6 min mark) youtube.com/watch?v=uePet5 (
Research!America Alliance Member Meeting with Dr. Peter Marks
With several COVID-19 vaccine candidates under FDA review, Dr. Peter Marks, Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), joined us …
youtube.com

 (she/her/hers)

@lisabari

Replying to

It will be really interesting to learn more about the immune response from J&J’s one dose regimen.

Pearl Freier
@PearlF

I think they’re expecting data from J&J in January

Part 1:

Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.

By Michael Segal, MD, PhD

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-shot-instead-of-two-at-saving-lives-11607643152

A Shot (Instead of Two) at Saving Lives

Waiting on the Covid booster would allow more people to be vaccinated sooner.

By Michael Segal

Dec. 10, 2020 6:32 pm ET

Recent days brought good news and bad news about coronavirus vaccines. The developments could add up to months of delay in getting most Americans inoculated. But there’s a way to make use of the good news to speed up herd immunity.

The bad news is that in July the U.S. passed up an opportunity to secure by June 2021 more than 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, now expected to receive emergency-use authorization in the next few days. Instead, officials followed a balanced-portfolio strategy that reserved as many as 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, whose prospects are unclear.

The good news is that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines performed at the upper end of expectations, with 95% efficacy after two doses. And intriguingly, Pfizer’s submission to the Food and Drug Administration shows that the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease had largely kicked in by two weeks after the first dose, and there was no dramatic increase in efficacy after the booster was given three weeks later.

The protocol in Pfizer’s clinical trial was to give all participants two doses. The FDA is likely to approve this protocol, and standard procedure is to prescribe a drug according to protocol. But we are in a pandemic and supplies of vaccine are inadequate. There’s an alternative: vaccinating as many people as possible with a first dose and waiting on the booster until supplies are plentiful.

The Pfizer study wasn’t designed to put a number on first-dose efficacy, but the data in Pfizer’s “cumulative incidence curves” suggest at least 75% efficacy for two weeks after one dose. The question is whether to use the 100 million doses on 50 million people, of whom two doses would protect roughly 47.5 million, or to give one dose each to 100 million people and protect at least 75 million.

States have the authority to allocate vaccines as they choose, but they’re unlikely to deviate from the study protocol unless a federal authority—whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or a coronavirus “czar”—suggests this as an option.

Even under such an approach, some essential personnel—such as doctors and nurses who work directly with coronavirus patients and health aides who work in multiple nursing homes—should get two doses as soon as possible, given their high-risk role in the pandemic response.

The U.S. will have more than these 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Some will come from Moderna, and the federal government could use the Defense Production Act to snatch some Pfizer doses that the company contracted to sell to other countries. Even so, supply will be constrained at first, and officials need to think clearly and flexibly about how to allocate the limited doses that will be available soon.

Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina expressed his disappointment with society’s decision making during the pandemic: “I’m just astounded by the dysfunction, the willingness to just stay the course as hundreds of thousands of people die, and the unwillingness to innovate in literally any way.” Here’s a simple innovation that could save many lives.

Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the December 11, 2020, print edition.

Part 2:

Expert Opinion by Clinical Authority in Practice of Cardiac Imaging:

The Voice of Dr. Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC

From: Justin MDMEPhD <jdpmdphd@gmail.com>

Date: Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 10:40 PM

To: “Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN” <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Re: I NEED YOUR EXPERT OPINION on Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation

Michael Segal proposes off-label use of the Pfizer 2-injection Covid-19 vaccine, based on data that suggested “75% protection at 2 weeks.” There was no controlled study reported of any sustained benefit from the single injection beyond 2 weeks, because those who received a first injection of vaccine received the designed booster at 2 weeks. Dr. Segal suggests it would be irresponsible to use the medication in the manner designed and tested. Instead, he could have proposed a study to determine the duration and degree of benefit from a single dose injection. However, one might argue that could delay the release of an effective regimen for the possibility that his proposed 1 dose regimen might be adequate for some, and possibly for more than the two weeks observed. Even if his guess is correct on both counts, both in his guess that the partial benefit at two weeks might be adequate and that it might last longer than the observed two weeks, it could still be deemed irresponsible to impose his guess for obvious reasons. His guess might be wrong, and could deprive many of the regimen that was validated as effective. Diverting an effective validated regimen to a guess could put many in harms way who would have been protected by the designed 2 dose regimen. He admits to low confidence in his recommendation when he proposes that essential workers should get the validated 2-dose regimen. Why does his recommendation stop there – why not propose a quarter dose to 4 times as many, or 1/8 dose to 8 times as many? Why apply the argument just to the two-dose regimen? He could also guess that a half dose of the single injection successful vaccines might be adequate. The motivation to second guess supply choices and doses is understandable, but it is not sound, as it is just a guess, not a validated regimen.

In addition, he also argues for 20-20 hindsight in the government distributing funds to mulitiple vaccines, instead of disproportionate purchase from Pfizer. Trials are limited in size, and further data will be collected on those vaccinated. Balanced investment may save more lives, not fewer, depending on those outcomes.

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:20 PM Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Dear Dr. Pearlman,

Please send me 1/2 –1 page as a Critic of 

  • Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation, below

Part 3:

Expert Opinion by Scientific Authority in Population Biology

The Voice of Prof. Marcus W. Feldman, PhD

From: Marcus W Feldman <mfeldman@stanford.edu>

Date: Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 6:52 PM

To: “Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN” <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Re: Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation

RE Segal’s note:

We need more details on the longer term efficacy of the one-dose regimen. Once we have such data, the question of whether 100 million one-dose treatments will be more protective of the population than 50 million two-dose treatments can be addressed. The question of how many hospitalizations and/or deaths would be avoided by going straight to the one-dose regimen can’t be answered. Both approaches leave unanswered whether the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person is reduced. I would estimate that we need 300 million 2-dose treatments to vaccinate all under 16 year olds.

On Dec 13, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu> wrote:

Dear Prof. Feldman,

Please send me 1/2 –1 page as a Critic of 

  • Mickey Segal’s WSJ op-ed on vaccine dose allocation, below

Part 4:

Summary

The Voices of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The Voice of Prof. Stephen J. Williams, PhD

In light of just approved Moderna vaccine, AstraZenaca & JNJ forthcoming vaccine and the approved Pfizer BioNTech coverage should be over 200 million in US, making rationing of second booster shot unnecessary.  However, there is still a concern among the developing and underdeveloped nations that access to these vaccines will be restricted.

The following curation are articles related to this matter from the AAAS and CDC.

CDC advisory panel takes first shot at prioritizing who gets the first shots of COVID-19 vaccines
By Jon CohenDec. 1, 2020 , 8:25 PM
Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

Health care workers and elderly people living in long-term care facilities should receive top priority for COVID-19 vaccines in the United States if, as expected, one or more becomes available next month in limited supply. That’s what a group that advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on such fraught issues decided today in a near-unanimous vote.

After hearing detailed presentations from CDC scientists who explained the rationale for this specific prioritization scheme, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 13 to one to support their proposal. Under the scheme, the first phase of vaccination, known as 1a, would begin with about 21 million health care workers and about 3 million adults who live in long-term care facilities. As spelled out in the 4-hour-long virtual meeting, these groups are at highest risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID-19, and protecting them first, in turn, reduces the burden on society.

“I agree strongly with the decision of the committee,” says Stanley Perlman, a veteran coronavirus researcher and clinician at the University of Iowa who advised ACIP but is not part of it. “The discussions were incredibly thoughtful with everyone recognizing that we needed to make difficult choices. Of course, these allocation issues will become irrelevant once there are enough doses of useful vaccines.”

‘Just beautiful’: Another COVID-19 vaccine, from newcomer Moderna, succeeds in large-scale trial
By Jon CohenNov. 16, 2020 , 7:00 AM
Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER
Get more great content like this delivered right to you!

Now, there are two. Another COVID-19 vaccine using the same previously unproven technology as the vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech, the U.S. and German companies that reported success on 9 November, appears to work remarkably well. And this time, the maker, U.S. biotech Moderna, is releasing a bit more data to back its claim than the other two companies.

An independent board monitoring Moderna’s 30,000-person vaccine trial met on Sunday and reported to the company and U.S. government health officials that only five people in the vaccinated group developed confirmed cases of COVID-19, whereas 90 people who received placebo shots became ill with the disease. That’s an efficacy of 94.5%, the company reported in a press release this morning. Although the clinical trial measurement may not translate into an equally high level of real-world protection, the success indicates the vaccine is Iikely more than effective enough to stop the pandemic if it can be widely distributed.

“That efficacy is just beautiful, and there’s no question about the veracity of it either,” says Lawrence Corey, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who co-led the clinical trials network that is testing the vaccine.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine ready to ship pending FDA approval -U.S. health chief

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-azar-idUSKBN28R265?taid=5fdc062c54859c0001437b9b&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Thursday said nearly 6 million doses of Moderna Inc’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine were poised to ship nationwide as soon as it secures Food and Drug Administration approval. Azar, in an interview on CNBC, said federal health officials had allotted 5.9 million doses to send to the nation’s governors, who are managing each state’s distribution. “We’re ready to start shipping this weekend to them for rollout Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week. We’re ready to go,” he said. An FDA panel of outside advisers is weighing the safety and effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine candidate at a meeting on Thursday. The agency will weigh the committee’s conclusions in making its approval decision.

The strategy seems to have been produce multiple vaccines from multiple sources which reduce the strain on manufacturing of required doses.
However, many underdeveloped nations as well as developing nations are worried about the nationalism of access to these vaccines.  Please read below:

Abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (AfSD) has the vision to leave no one behind, particularly low-income countries. Yet COVID-19 seems to have brought up new rules and approaches. Through document and critical discourse analysis, it emerges that there has been a surge in COVID-19 vaccines and treatments nationalism. Global solidarity is threatened, with the USA, United Kingdom, European Union and Japan having secured 1.3 billion doses of potential vaccines as of August 2020. Vaccines ran out even before their approval with three candidates from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca having shown good Phase III results in November 2020. Rich countries have gone years ahead in advance vaccines and treatments purchases. This is a testimony that the 2030 AfSD, especially SDG 3 focusing on health will be difficult to achieve. Low-income countries are left gasping for survival as the COVID-19 pandemic relegates them further into extreme poverty and deeper inequality. The paper recommends the continued mobilisation by the World Health Organisation and other key stakeholders in supporting the GAVI vaccine alliance and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (COVAX) global vaccines initiative that seeks to make two billion vaccine doses available to 92 low and middle-income countries by December 2021.

Others have voiced their concerns on this matter:

 

Reserving coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines for global access: cross sectional analysis

From: Anthony D So 1 2Joshua Woo 2 BMJ2020 Dec 15;371:m4750. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4750.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the premarket purchase commitments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) vaccines from leading manufacturers to recipient countries.

Design: Cross sectional analysis.

Data sources: World Health Organization’s draft landscape of covid-19 candidate vaccines, along with company disclosures to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, company and foundation press releases, government press releases, and media reports.

Eligibility criteria and data analysis: Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccines, publicly announced by 15 November 2020.

Main outcome measures: Premarket purchase commitments for covid-19 vaccine candidates and price per course, vaccine platform, and stage of research and development, as well as procurement agent and recipient country.

Results: As of 15 November 2020, several countries have made premarket purchase commitments totaling 7.48 billion doses, or 3.76 billion courses, of covid-19 vaccines from 13 vaccine manufacturers. Just over half (51%) of these doses will go to high income countries, which represent 14% of the world’s population. The US has reserved 800 million doses but accounts for a fifth of all covid-19 cases globally (11.02 million cases), whereas Japan, Australia, and Canada have collectively reserved more than one billion doses but do not account for even 1% of current global covid-19 cases globally (0.45 million cases). If these vaccine candidates were all successfully scaled, the total projected manufacturing capacity would be 5.96 billion courses by the end of 2021. Up to 40% (or 2.34 billion) of vaccine courses from these manufacturers might potentially remain for low and middle income countries-less if high income countries exercise scale-up options and more if high income countries share what they have procured. Prices for these vaccines vary by more than 10-fold, from $6.00 (£4.50; €4.90) per course to as high as $74 per course. With broad country participation apart from the US and Russia, the COVAX Facility-the vaccines pillar of the World Health Organization’s Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator-has secured at least 500 million doses, or 250 million courses, and financing for half of the targeted two billion doses by the end of 2021 in efforts to support globally coordinated access to covid-19 vaccines.

Conclusions: This study provides an overview of how high income countries have secured future supplies of covid-19 vaccines but that access for the rest of the world is uncertain. Governments and manufacturers might provide much needed assurances for equitable allocation of covid-19 vaccines through greater transparency and accountability over these arrangements.

The Voice of Adina Hazan, PhD

I have a few issues with the proposal and the asserted outcomes:

The author suggests that back in July 2020 “the U.S. passed up an opportunity to secure by June 2021 more than 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine…[by] follow[ing] a balanced-portfolio strategy”. By stating that the U.S. “passed up an opportunity” at that time when all available evidence could not indicate which vaccine would prove successful is taking a “hindsight is 2020” approach. Instead, an all-or-nothing portfolio in July 2020 for one vaccine over another would have been at best unwise and at worst could have passed up the “right” vaccine.

In addition, the author’s core suggestion is that every person in America and the world needs the vaccine at the same time, aka as soon as possible. Considering the incredibly striated outcomes of patients that contract COVID-19, this is not the case. We know that males up until 85 years old with have a much worse prognosis than women, for example1. In addition, all data suggests that the lowest risk group is children, with a death rate in the U.S. of 0.1%1. Trying to vaccinate all children with a vaccine whose long-term effects are, at this time, unknown, for a disease with such a low death rate is not urgent and may warrant waiting for more evidence. Instead of trying to inoculate everyone as fast as possible, the two-dose approach that is currently implemented ensures that those most at risk receive the maximum protection, instead of leaving them at higher risks even after vaccination. In this way, the vaccine will do what it was originally intended to do: protect the most vulnerable immediately, and in turn begin to alleviate the strain on the overall population as a result of this disease.

  1. S. CDC website (Deaths by Age Group, 12/18/2020)

The Voice of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

  • I recommand to adhere to administration protocol.
  • I agree with Dr. Joel Jertock:

It is very clear that the current COVID vaccination protocols call for two shots, three weeks apart, for maximum protection.

Limiting personnel to a single shot, “to spread the available vaccines further” just means wasting those doses.  It is similar to taking an antibiotic for only 5 days instead of the recommended 10 days, “to make the pills last longer.”

References on Vaccine Development 

Development of Medical Counter-measures for 2019-nCoV, CoVid19, Coronavirus

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »