J&J VACCINE TO REMAIN ON PAUSE AS OFFICIALS REVIEW MORE DATA
Advisory panel wants more time to assess clot risks
A federal vaccine advisory committee said Wednesday it wanted more data before deciding whether to resume use of Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus vaccine, leaving in place a pause that federal officials had recommended because of a rare and severe type of blood clot identified so far among six of the 7.5 million people who received the shot.
The move means the single-shot Johnson & Johnson product will remain on the shelf for at least a week.
At a hastily arranged emergency meeting a day after federal officials recommended a pause in use of the vaccine, advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed to reconvene within 10 days, acknowledging the urgency of making a decision about a vaccine that is a key part of the strategy to end the pandemic in the United States and globally.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed details about six cases of blood clots in women who were between the ages of 18 and 48. The women developed symptoms, most often headaches, six to 13 days after vaccination. One vaccine recipient, a Virginia woman, died in March, and another is in critical condition, health officials have said. Two have been discharged and three remain in the hospital.
Instead of voting on a recommendation about whether and how the vaccination campaign could be restarted, panel members said they wanted more information on the risks, cause and frequency of the rare brain blood clots. When the panel reconvenes, members could vote at that time to recommend the vaccine for people 18 and older, continue an overall pause or pause use for certain age groups.
“We are very fortunate, because we have multiple other alternatives in the U.S. to help stop this pandemic. We have very good, wellproven alternatives where we are not seeing safety signals,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University and committee member. “I think that puts us in a little bit of a different position, and we can be much more cautious and thoughtful and use the old model of, ‘First, do no harm.’”