Carolyn Crist

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding but not overall or lower GI bleeding rates, compared with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), according to a new nationwide report from Iceland.

In addition, warfarin is associated with higher rates of major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

“Although there has been a myriad of studies comparing GI bleeding rates between warfarin and DOACs, very few studies have compared upper and lower GI bleeding rates specifically,” Arnar Ingason, MD, PhD, a gastroenterology resident at the University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, said in an interview.

“Knowing whether the risk of upper and lower GI bleeding differs between warfarin and DOACs is important, as it can help guide oral anticoagulant selection,” he said.

“Given that warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GI bleeding compared to DOACs in our study, warfarin may not be optimal for patients with high risk of upper GI bleeding, such as patients with previous history of upper GI bleeding,” Dr. Ingason added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing bleed rates

Dr. Ingason and colleagues analyzed data from electronic medical records for more than 7,000 patients in Iceland who began a prescription for oral anticoagulants between 2014 and 2019. They used inverse probability weighting to yield balanced study groups and calculate the rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GI bleeding. All events of gastrointestinal bleeding were manually confirmed by chart review.

Clinically relevant GI bleeding was defined as bleeding that led to medical intervention, unscheduled physician contact, or temporary cessation of treatment. Upper GI bleeding was defined as hematemesis or a confirmed upper GI bleed site on endoscopy, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleeding was defined as hematochezia or a confirmed lower GI bleed site on endoscopy. Patients with melena and uncertain bleeding site on endoscopy were classified as having a gastrointestinal bleed of unknown location.

Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of at least 20 g/L, transfusion of two or more packs of red blood cells, or bleeding into a closed compartment such as the retroperitoneum.

In total, 295 gastrointestinal bleed events were identified, with 150 events (51%) classified as lower, 105 events (36%) classified as upper, and 40 events (14%) of an unknown location. About 71% required hospitalization, and 63% met the criteria for major bleeding. Five patients died, including three taking warfarin and the other two taking apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Overall, warfarin was associated with double the rate of upper GI bleeding, with 1.7 events per 100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events per 100 person-years for DOACs. The rates of lower GI bleeding were similar for the drugs.

Specifically, warfarin was associated with nearly 5.5 times higher rates of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with dabigatran (Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim), 2.6 times higher than apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb), and 1.7 times higher than rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen). The risk for upper GI bleeding also was higher in men taking warfarin.

Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major bleeding, compared with apixaban, with 2.3 events per 100 person-years versus 1.5 events per 100 person-years. Otherwise, overall and major bleed rates were similar for users of warfarin and DOACs.

“GI bleeding among cardiac patients on anticoagulants and antiplatelets is the fastest growing group of GI bleeders,” Neena Abraham, MD, professor of medicine and a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., said in an interview.

Dr. Abraham, who wasn’t involved with this study, runs a dedicated cardiogastroenterology practice and has studied these patients’ bleeding risk for 20 years.

“This is a group that is ever increasing with aging baby boomers,” she said. “It is anticipated by 2040 that more than 40% of the U.S. adult population will have one or more cardiovascular conditions requiring the chronic prescription of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs.”
 

Considering future research

In this study, peptic ulcer disease was a proportionally less common cause of upper GI bleeding for warfarin at 18%, compared with DOACs at 39%. At the same time, the absolute propensity-weighted incidence rates of peptic ulcer–induced bleeding were similar, with 0.3 events per 100 person-years for both groups.

“As warfarin is not thought to induce peptic ulcer disease but rather promote bleeding from pre-existing lesions, one explanation may be that peptic ulcer disease almost always leads to overt bleeding in anticoagulated patients, while other lesions, such as mucosal erosions and angiodysplasias, may be more likely to lead to overt bleeding in warfarin patients due to a potentially more intense anticoagulation,” Dr. Ingason said.

Dr. Ingason and colleagues now plan to compare GI bleeding severity between warfarin and DOACs. Previous studies have suggested that GI bleeding may be more severe in patients receiving warfarin than in those receiving DOACs, he said.

In addition, large studies with manual verification of GI bleed events could better estimate the potential differences in the sources of upper and lower bleeding between warfarin and DOACs, Dr. Ingason noted.

“Some DOACs, specifically dabigatran, are known to have a mucosal effect on the luminal GI tract, as well as a systemic effect,” Dr. Abraham said. “This pharmacologic effect may contribute to an increase in lower gastrointestinal bleeding in the setting of colonic diverticulosis or mucosal injuries from inflammatory processes.”

Ongoing research should also look at different ways to reduce anticoagulant-related GI bleeding among cardiac patients, she noted.

“Our research group continues to study the risk of cardiac and bleeding adverse events in patients prescribed to DOACs compared to those patients who receive a left atrial appendage occlusion device,” Dr. Abraham said. “This device often permits patients at high risk of GI bleeding to transition off anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.”

The study was funded by the Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Abraham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021, after a historic drop in 2020, to reach the lowest point in decades, according to new CDC data.

In 2021, the average American could expect to live until age 76, which fell from 77 in 2020 and 79 in 2019. That marks the lowest age since 1996 and the largest 2-year decline since 1923.

“Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely,” Robert Anderson, PhD, chief of mortality statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics, which produced the report, told The New York Times.

“This signals a huge impact on the population in terms of increased mortality,” he said.

COVID-19 played a major role, with excess death from the coronavirus contributing to half of the decline during the past 2 years. Drug overdose deaths also reached a record high in 2021, rising to about 109,000 people. Unintentional injuries, with about half due to drug overdose, were a leading cause of the decline in life expectancy, along with deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and suicide.

The decrease has been particularly devastating among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Average life expectancy dropped by 4 years in 2020 alone and more than 6.5 years since the beginning of the pandemic. Now their life expectancy is 65, which was the average for all Americans in 1944.

“When I saw that in the report, I just – my jaw dropped,” Dr. Anderson told CNN.

“It was hard enough to fathom a 2.7-year decline over 2 years overall,” he said. “But then to see a 6.6-year decline for the American Indian population, it just shows the substantial impact that the pandemic has had on that population.”

Longstanding health issues and systemic problems, such as poverty, discrimination, and poor access to health care, led to the major declines among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, CNN reported.

“A lot of the talk is going to be around the pandemic, but we need to think about what has driven the conditions that have allowed certain communities to be more vulnerable,” Ruben Cantu, an associate program director with Prevention Institute, a nonprofit focused on health equity, told CNN.

The gap in life expectancy between women and men also became wider in 2021, growing to 5.9 years and marking the largest gap since 1996. The life expectancy for men in 2021 was 73.2, as compared with 79.1 for women.

The decline in overall U.S. life expectancy would have been even greater if there weren’t “offsetting effects,” the researchers wrote, such as declines in death due to the flu, pneumonia, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The drop in U.S. life expectancy is “historic,” Steven Woolf, MD, retired director of the Center on Society and Health and Virginia Commonwealth University, told the Times.

Other high-income countries also saw a drop in life expectancy in 2020 due to the pandemic, but most began to recover last year due to major vaccine campaigns and behavior changes such as wearing masks, he said.

“None of them experienced a continuing fall in life expectancy like the U.S. did, and a good number of them saw life expectancy start inching back to normal,” he said. “The U.S. is clearly an outlier.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13-17 years of life, compared with patients who remained on the wait list, according to a retrospective case-control study.

The data suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by either other lifesaving procedures or liver transplant from a deceased donor, wrote the researchers, led by Whitney Jackson, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and medical director of living-donor liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

“Despite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States,” the authors wrote in JAMA Surgery. “This study’s findings challenge current perceptions regarding when the survival benefit of a living-donor transplant occurs.”

Dr. Jackson and colleagues conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for 119,275 U.S. liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 2012 to September 2021. They assessed the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at which the survival benefit was obtained, compared with those who remained on the wait list.

The research team included 116,455 liver transplant candidates who were 18 and older and assigned to the wait list, as well as 2,820 patients who received a living-donor liver transplant. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant were excluded, as were those with prior kidney or liver transplants.

The mean age of the study participants was 55 years, and 63% were men. Overall, 70.2% were White, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latinx, 8.2% were Black or African American, 4.3% were Asian, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The most common etiologies were alcoholic cirrhosis (23.8%) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (15.9%).

Compared with patients on the wait list, recipients of a living-donor liver transplant were younger, more often women, more educated, and more often White. A greater proportion of transplant recipients had a primary etiology of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (19.8%) and cholestatic liver disease (24.1%). At wait list placement, one-third of candidates had a MELD-Na score of 14 or higher.

The research team found a significant survival benefit for patients receiving a living-donor liver transplant based on mortality risk and survival scores. The survival benefit was significant at a MELD-Na score as low as 11, with a 34% decrease(95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4%-52.0%) in mortality compared with the wait list. In addition, mortality risk models confirmed a survival benefit for patients with a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher at 1 year after transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88; P = .006). At a MELD-Na score of 14-16, mortality decreased by about 50% (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001).

The probability of death from a living-donor liver transplant for patients with very low MELD-Na scores (between 6 and 10) was greater than that for patients on the wait list for the first 259 days, at which point the risk of death for both groups was equal. At 471 days, the probability of survival in both groups was equal. As the MELD-Na score increased, both the time to equal risk of death and the time to equal survival decreased, demonstrating that the survival benefit occurs much earlier for patients with a higher MELD-Na score.

Analysis of life-years from transplant showed living-donor transplant recipients gained 13-17 life-years compared to those who didn’t receive one.

“Living-donor liver transplantation is a valuable yet underutilized strategy to address the significant organ shortage and long waiting times on the transplant list in the U.S.,” said Renu Dhanasekaran, MD, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Dhanasekaran, who wasn’t involved with this study, also welcomed the finding that living-donor liver transplantation can benefit patients with low MELD-Na scores, even below the expected cutoff at 15. According to the study authors, previous research had suggested benefit would be seen only at MELD-Na 15 and above.

“In my practice, I have several patients whose symptoms are out of proportion to their MELD score, and data like this will convince them and their potential donors to avail a transplant at an earlier stage,” she said.

The findings challenge the current paradigm around the timing of referral for a liver transplant and may have ramifications for allocation policies for deceased donors, the study authors wrote. The data can also help to contextualize risk-benefit discussions for donors and recipients.

“Donating a part of one’s liver to save a patient suffering from end-stage liver disease is an incredible act of selfless love,” Dr. Dhanasekaran said. “I hope strong positive data from studies like this one encourage more donors, patients, and transplant centers to expand the use of [living-donor liver transplant].”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author disclosed being married to the current chair of the United Network for Organ Sharing’s Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee. No other conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Dhanasekaran reported no relevant disclosures.

Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13-17 years of life, compared with patients who remained on the wait list, according to a retrospective case-control study.

The data suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by either other lifesaving procedures or liver transplant from a deceased donor, wrote the researchers, led by Whitney Jackson, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and medical director of living-donor liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

“Despite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States,” the authors wrote in JAMA Surgery. “This study’s findings challenge current perceptions regarding when the survival benefit of a living-donor transplant occurs.”

Dr. Jackson and colleagues conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for 119,275 U.S. liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 2012 to September 2021. They assessed the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at which the survival benefit was obtained, compared with those who remained on the wait list.

The research team included 116,455 liver transplant candidates who were 18 and older and assigned to the wait list, as well as 2,820 patients who received a living-donor liver transplant. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant were excluded, as were those with prior kidney or liver transplants.

The mean age of the study participants was 55 years, and 63% were men. Overall, 70.2% were White, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latinx, 8.2% were Black or African American, 4.3% were Asian, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The most common etiologies were alcoholic cirrhosis (23.8%) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (15.9%).

Compared with patients on the wait list, recipients of a living-donor liver transplant were younger, more often women, more educated, and more often White. A greater proportion of transplant recipients had a primary etiology of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (19.8%) and cholestatic liver disease (24.1%). At wait list placement, one-third of candidates had a MELD-Na score of 14 or higher.

The research team found a significant survival benefit for patients receiving a living-donor liver transplant based on mortality risk and survival scores. The survival benefit was significant at a MELD-Na score as low as 11, with a 34% decrease(95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4%-52.0%) in mortality compared with the wait list. In addition, mortality risk models confirmed a survival benefit for patients with a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher at 1 year after transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88; P = .006). At a MELD-Na score of 14-16, mortality decreased by about 50% (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001).

The probability of death from a living-donor liver transplant for patients with very low MELD-Na scores (between 6 and 10) was greater than that for patients on the wait list for the first 259 days, at which point the risk of death for both groups was equal. At 471 days, the probability of survival in both groups was equal. As the MELD-Na score increased, both the time to equal risk of death and the time to equal survival decreased, demonstrating that the survival benefit occurs much earlier for patients with a higher MELD-Na score.

Analysis of life-years from transplant showed living-donor transplant recipients gained 13-17 life-years compared to those who didn’t receive one.

“Living-donor liver transplantation is a valuable yet underutilized strategy to address the significant organ shortage and long waiting times on the transplant list in the U.S.,” said Renu Dhanasekaran, MD, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Dhanasekaran, who wasn’t involved with this study, also welcomed the finding that living-donor liver transplantation can benefit patients with low MELD-Na scores, even below the expected cutoff at 15. According to the study authors, previous research had suggested benefit would be seen only at MELD-Na 15 and above.

“In my practice, I have several patients whose symptoms are out of proportion to their MELD score, and data like this will convince them and their potential donors to avail a transplant at an earlier stage,” she said.

The findings challenge the current paradigm around the timing of referral for a liver transplant and may have ramifications for allocation policies for deceased donors, the study authors wrote. The data can also help to contextualize risk-benefit discussions for donors and recipients.

“Donating a part of one’s liver to save a patient suffering from end-stage liver disease is an incredible act of selfless love,” Dr. Dhanasekaran said. “I hope strong positive data from studies like this one encourage more donors, patients, and transplant centers to expand the use of [living-donor liver transplant].”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author disclosed being married to the current chair of the United Network for Organ Sharing’s Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee. No other conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Dhanasekaran reported no relevant disclosures.

Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13-17 years of life, compared with patients who remained on the wait list, according to a retrospective case-control study.

The data suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by either other lifesaving procedures or liver transplant from a deceased donor, wrote the researchers, led by Whitney Jackson, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and medical director of living-donor liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

“Despite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States,” the authors wrote in JAMA Surgery. “This study’s findings challenge current perceptions regarding when the survival benefit of a living-donor transplant occurs.”

Dr. Jackson and colleagues conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for 119,275 U.S. liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 2012 to September 2021. They assessed the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at which the survival benefit was obtained, compared with those who remained on the wait list.

The research team included 116,455 liver transplant candidates who were 18 and older and assigned to the wait list, as well as 2,820 patients who received a living-donor liver transplant. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant were excluded, as were those with prior kidney or liver transplants.

The mean age of the study participants was 55 years, and 63% were men. Overall, 70.2% were White, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latinx, 8.2% were Black or African American, 4.3% were Asian, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The most common etiologies were alcoholic cirrhosis (23.8%) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (15.9%).

Compared with patients on the wait list, recipients of a living-donor liver transplant were younger, more often women, more educated, and more often White. A greater proportion of transplant recipients had a primary etiology of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (19.8%) and cholestatic liver disease (24.1%). At wait list placement, one-third of candidates had a MELD-Na score of 14 or higher.

The research team found a significant survival benefit for patients receiving a living-donor liver transplant based on mortality risk and survival scores. The survival benefit was significant at a MELD-Na score as low as 11, with a 34% decrease(95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4%-52.0%) in mortality compared with the wait list. In addition, mortality risk models confirmed a survival benefit for patients with a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher at 1 year after transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88; P = .006). At a MELD-Na score of 14-16, mortality decreased by about 50% (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001).

The probability of death from a living-donor liver transplant for patients with very low MELD-Na scores (between 6 and 10) was greater than that for patients on the wait list for the first 259 days, at which point the risk of death for both groups was equal. At 471 days, the probability of survival in both groups was equal. As the MELD-Na score increased, both the time to equal risk of death and the time to equal survival decreased, demonstrating that the survival benefit occurs much earlier for patients with a higher MELD-Na score.

Analysis of life-years from transplant showed living-donor transplant recipients gained 13-17 life-years compared to those who didn’t receive one.

“Living-donor liver transplantation is a valuable yet underutilized strategy to address the significant organ shortage and long waiting times on the transplant list in the U.S.,” said Renu Dhanasekaran, MD, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Dhanasekaran, who wasn’t involved with this study, also welcomed the finding that living-donor liver transplantation can benefit patients with low MELD-Na scores, even below the expected cutoff at 15. According to the study authors, previous research had suggested benefit would be seen only at MELD-Na 15 and above.

“In my practice, I have several patients whose symptoms are out of proportion to their MELD score, and data like this will convince them and their potential donors to avail a transplant at an earlier stage,” she said.

The findings challenge the current paradigm around the timing of referral for a liver transplant and may have ramifications for allocation policies for deceased donors, the study authors wrote. The data can also help to contextualize risk-benefit discussions for donors and recipients.

“Donating a part of one’s liver to save a patient suffering from end-stage liver disease is an incredible act of selfless love,” Dr. Dhanasekaran said. “I hope strong positive data from studies like this one encourage more donors, patients, and transplant centers to expand the use of [living-donor liver transplant].”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author disclosed being married to the current chair of the United Network for Organ Sharing’s Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee. No other conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Dhanasekaran reported no relevant disclosures.

Abbott Nutrition is resuming production of Similac, its leading baby formula, at a Michigan plant that was shut down earlier in 2022 because of contamination concerns.

The company closed the plant in February, which triggered a national shortage of baby formula amid pandemic-related supply chain issues that created a lack of formula ingredients.

“We know that the nationwide infant formula shortage has been difficult for the families we serve, and while restarting Similac production in Michigan is an important milestone, we won’t rest until this product is back on shelves,” Robert Ford, chairman and CEO of Abbott, said in a statement on Aug. 26.

“Making infant formula is a responsibility we take very seriously, and parents can feel confident in the quality and safety of Similac and other Abbott formulas,” he said. “We are committed to re-earning the trust parents and health care providers have placed in us for decades.”

Abbott estimated that it will take about 6 weeks for Similac products to ship to stores. Production has restarted, which will be followed by “enhanced” testing before and after the formula is made.

In February, Abbott voluntarily recalled batches of three formulas after the Food and Drug Administration received consumer complaints about infants becoming sick. Four babies who consumed formulas from the Michigan plant got bacterial infections, and at least two babies died.

The illnesses were linked to Cronobacter sakazakii – bacteria that can lead to life-threatening infections and inflammation of the brain and spine.

After investigations at the plant, Abbott said there is no conclusive evidence to link the formula to the illnesses. No samples of the recalled product tested positive for the bacteria, and in all four cases, unopened containers of formula in the infants’ homes tested negative for the bacteria.

At the same time, FDA officials said in May that the Michigan plant had a leaking roof, water pooling on the floor, and cracks in production equipment that could allow bacteria to grow, according to The New York Times.

Abbott agreed with the federal government to create new safeguards, such as hiring a qualified expert to oversee improvements at the plant and notify the FDA if any issues were identified, the newspaper reported.

On July 1, the company restarted production of EleCare, a specialty formula, and later resumed production of some metabolic formulas. These products will begin to ship in coming weeks, the company said.

Since July, C. sakazakii has been found in a couple of batches of formula.

“In those cases, we found the issue, addressed it and no affected product has been or will be distributed,” Abbott said in the statement. “This confirms our quality systems work.”

In August, Abbott will supply the United States with more than 8 million pounds of infant formula, which is higher than the levels in August 2021, the company said. To ensure that people in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children have access to formula, the company is extending rebates until the end of October.

“Restarting a large manufacturing facility after a several-month shutdown is a complex process, and it takes time to ensure that equipment, processes and production are functioning smoothly and sustainably,” the company said in the statement. “There have been – and likely will be – stops and starts from time to time. We’ve experienced events like severe weather, we’ve had to make mechanical adjustments, and we’ve had to discard some early production batches that didn’t meet our standards.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Abbott Nutrition is resuming production of Similac, its leading baby formula, at a Michigan plant that was shut down earlier in 2022 because of contamination concerns.

The company closed the plant in February, which triggered a national shortage of baby formula amid pandemic-related supply chain issues that created a lack of formula ingredients.

“We know that the nationwide infant formula shortage has been difficult for the families we serve, and while restarting Similac production in Michigan is an important milestone, we won’t rest until this product is back on shelves,” Robert Ford, chairman and CEO of Abbott, said in a statement on Aug. 26.

“Making infant formula is a responsibility we take very seriously, and parents can feel confident in the quality and safety of Similac and other Abbott formulas,” he said. “We are committed to re-earning the trust parents and health care providers have placed in us for decades.”

Abbott estimated that it will take about 6 weeks for Similac products to ship to stores. Production has restarted, which will be followed by “enhanced” testing before and after the formula is made.

In February, Abbott voluntarily recalled batches of three formulas after the Food and Drug Administration received consumer complaints about infants becoming sick. Four babies who consumed formulas from the Michigan plant got bacterial infections, and at least two babies died.

The illnesses were linked to Cronobacter sakazakii – bacteria that can lead to life-threatening infections and inflammation of the brain and spine.

After investigations at the plant, Abbott said there is no conclusive evidence to link the formula to the illnesses. No samples of the recalled product tested positive for the bacteria, and in all four cases, unopened containers of formula in the infants’ homes tested negative for the bacteria.

At the same time, FDA officials said in May that the Michigan plant had a leaking roof, water pooling on the floor, and cracks in production equipment that could allow bacteria to grow, according to The New York Times.

Abbott agreed with the federal government to create new safeguards, such as hiring a qualified expert to oversee improvements at the plant and notify the FDA if any issues were identified, the newspaper reported.

On July 1, the company restarted production of EleCare, a specialty formula, and later resumed production of some metabolic formulas. These products will begin to ship in coming weeks, the company said.

Since July, C. sakazakii has been found in a couple of batches of formula.

“In those cases, we found the issue, addressed it and no affected product has been or will be distributed,” Abbott said in the statement. “This confirms our quality systems work.”

In August, Abbott will supply the United States with more than 8 million pounds of infant formula, which is higher than the levels in August 2021, the company said. To ensure that people in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children have access to formula, the company is extending rebates until the end of October.

“Restarting a large manufacturing facility after a several-month shutdown is a complex process, and it takes time to ensure that equipment, processes and production are functioning smoothly and sustainably,” the company said in the statement. “There have been – and likely will be – stops and starts from time to time. We’ve experienced events like severe weather, we’ve had to make mechanical adjustments, and we’ve had to discard some early production batches that didn’t meet our standards.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Abbott Nutrition is resuming production of Similac, its leading baby formula, at a Michigan plant that was shut down earlier in 2022 because of contamination concerns.

The company closed the plant in February, which triggered a national shortage of baby formula amid pandemic-related supply chain issues that created a lack of formula ingredients.

“We know that the nationwide infant formula shortage has been difficult for the families we serve, and while restarting Similac production in Michigan is an important milestone, we won’t rest until this product is back on shelves,” Robert Ford, chairman and CEO of Abbott, said in a statement on Aug. 26.

“Making infant formula is a responsibility we take very seriously, and parents can feel confident in the quality and safety of Similac and other Abbott formulas,” he said. “We are committed to re-earning the trust parents and health care providers have placed in us for decades.”

Abbott estimated that it will take about 6 weeks for Similac products to ship to stores. Production has restarted, which will be followed by “enhanced” testing before and after the formula is made.

In February, Abbott voluntarily recalled batches of three formulas after the Food and Drug Administration received consumer complaints about infants becoming sick. Four babies who consumed formulas from the Michigan plant got bacterial infections, and at least two babies died.

The illnesses were linked to Cronobacter sakazakii – bacteria that can lead to life-threatening infections and inflammation of the brain and spine.

After investigations at the plant, Abbott said there is no conclusive evidence to link the formula to the illnesses. No samples of the recalled product tested positive for the bacteria, and in all four cases, unopened containers of formula in the infants’ homes tested negative for the bacteria.

At the same time, FDA officials said in May that the Michigan plant had a leaking roof, water pooling on the floor, and cracks in production equipment that could allow bacteria to grow, according to The New York Times.

Abbott agreed with the federal government to create new safeguards, such as hiring a qualified expert to oversee improvements at the plant and notify the FDA if any issues were identified, the newspaper reported.

On July 1, the company restarted production of EleCare, a specialty formula, and later resumed production of some metabolic formulas. These products will begin to ship in coming weeks, the company said.

Since July, C. sakazakii has been found in a couple of batches of formula.

“In those cases, we found the issue, addressed it and no affected product has been or will be distributed,” Abbott said in the statement. “This confirms our quality systems work.”

In August, Abbott will supply the United States with more than 8 million pounds of infant formula, which is higher than the levels in August 2021, the company said. To ensure that people in the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children have access to formula, the company is extending rebates until the end of October.

“Restarting a large manufacturing facility after a several-month shutdown is a complex process, and it takes time to ensure that equipment, processes and production are functioning smoothly and sustainably,” the company said in the statement. “There have been – and likely will be – stops and starts from time to time. We’ve experienced events like severe weather, we’ve had to make mechanical adjustments, and we’ve had to discard some early production batches that didn’t meet our standards.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience gastrointestinal symptoms have overall worse in-hospital complications but less cardiomyopathy and mortality, according to a new study.

About 20% of COVID-19 patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which clinicians should consider when treating their hospitalized patients, wrote researchers led by Nikita Patil, MD, a hospitalist at Nash General Hospital–UNC Nash Healthcare in Rocky Mount, N.C., in Gastro Hep Advances.

“It’s important to know that certain complications are higher in people with GI symptoms,” she said in an interview. “Even without an increased risk of death, there are many problems that affect quality of life and lead to people not being able to do the things they were able to do before.”

Dr. Patil and colleagues analyzed the association of GI symptoms with adverse outcomes in 100,902 patients from the Cerner Real-World Data COVID-19 Database, which included hospital encounters and ED visits for COVID-19 between December 2019 to November 2020; the data were taken from EMRs at centers with which Cerner has a data use agreement. They also looked at factors associated with poor outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator requirement or oxygen dependence.

The average age of the patients was 52, and a higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms were 50 and older. Of those with GI symptoms, 54.5% were women. Overall, patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores and have comorbidities such as acute liver failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, GI malignancy, and inflammatory bowel disease.

The research team found that COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms were more likely to have acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29), sepsis (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.36), venous thromboembolism (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.52), and GI bleeding (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79), as compared with COVID-19 patients without GI symptoms (P < .0001 for all comparisons). At the same time, those with GI symptoms were less likely to experience cardiomyopathy (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .027), respiratory failure (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < .0001), or death (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75; P < .0001).

GI bleed was the most common GI complication, found among 2% of all patients, and was more likely in patients with GI symptoms than in those without (3.5% vs. 1.6%). Intestinal ischemia, pancreatitis, acute liver injury, and intestinal pseudo-obstruction weren’t associated with GI symptoms.

Among the 19,915 patients with GI symptoms, older age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, use of proton pump inhibitors, and use of H₂ receptor antagonists were associated with higher mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and ventilator or oxygen requirement. Men with GI symptoms also had a higher risk of mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and sepsis.

In particular, proton pump inhibitor use was associated with more than twice the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-1.66; P < .0001). Similarly, H₂ receptor antagonist use was associated with higher likelihood of death (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57-2.02), as well as more than three times the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.29-4.28), more than twice the risk of sepsis (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.28-2.73), and nearly twice the risk of ventilator or oxygen dependence (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.30) (P < .0001 for all).

The findings could guide risk stratification, prognosis, and treatment decisions in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms, as well as inform future research focused on risk mitigation and improvement of COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Patil said.

“The protocols for COVID-19 treatment have changed over the past 2 years with blood thinners and steroids,” she said. “Although we likely can’t avoid anti-reflux medicines entirely, it’s something we need to be cognizant of and look out for in our hospitalized patients.”

One study limitation was its inclusion of only inpatient or ED encounters and, therefore, omission of those treated at home; this confers bias toward those with more aggressive disease, according to the authors.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author declared grant support and consultant fees from several companies, including some medical and pharmaceutical companies, which were unrelated to this research. Dr. Patil reported no disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 26, 2022.

Pfizer has sent an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization of its updated COVID-19 booster vaccine for the fall of 2022, the company announced on Aug. 22.

The vaccine, which is adapted for the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants, would be meant for ages 12 and older. If authorized by the FDA, the doses could ship as soon as September.

“Having rapidly scaled up production, we are positioned to immediately begin distribution of the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 boosters, if authorized, to help protect individuals and families as we prepare for potential fall and winter surges,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the statement.

Earlier this year, the FDA ordered vaccine makers such as Pfizer and Moderna to update their shots to target BA.4 and BA.5, which are better at escaping immunity from earlier vaccines and previous infections.

The United States has a contract to buy 105 million of the Pfizer doses and 66 million of the Moderna doses, according to The Associated Press. Moderna is expected to file its FDA application soon as well.

The new shots target both the original spike protein on the coronavirus and the spike mutations carried by BA.4 and BA.5. For now, BA.5 is causing 89% of new infections in the United States, followed by BA.4.6 with 6.3% and BA.4 with 4.3%, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

There’s no way to tell if BA.5 will still be the dominant strain this winter or if new variant will replace it, the AP reported. But public health officials have supported the updated boosters as a way to target the most recent strains and increase immunity again.

On Aug. 15, Great Britain became the first country to authorize another one of Moderna’s updated vaccines, which adds protection against BA.1, or the original Omicron strain that became dominant in the winter of 2021-2022. European regulators are considering this shot, the AP reported, but the United States opted not to use this version since new Omicron variants have become dominant.

To approve the latest Pfizer shot, the FDA will rely on scientific testing of prior updates to the vaccine, rather than the newest boosters, to decide whether to fast-track the updated shots for fall, the AP reported. This method is like how flu vaccines are updated each year without large studies that take months.

Previously, Pfizer announced results from a study that found the earlier Omicron update significantly boosted antibodies capable of fighting the BA.1 variant and provided some protection against BA.4 and BA.5. The company’s latest FDA application contains that data and animal testing on the newest booster, the AP reported.

Pfizer will start a trial using the BA.4/BA.5 booster in coming weeks to get more data on how well the latest shot works. Moderna has begun a similar study.

The full results from these studies won’t be available before a fall booster campaign, which is why the FDA and public health officials have called for an updated shot to be ready for distribution in September.

“It’s clear that none of these vaccines are going to completely prevent infection,” Rachel Presti, MD, a researcher with the Moderna trial and an infectious diseases specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, told the AP.

But previous studies of variant booster candidates have shown that “you still get a broader immune response giving a variant booster than giving the same booster,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer has sent an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization of its updated COVID-19 booster vaccine for the fall of 2022, the company announced on Aug. 22.

The vaccine, which is adapted for the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants, would be meant for ages 12 and older. If authorized by the FDA, the doses could ship as soon as September.

“Having rapidly scaled up production, we are positioned to immediately begin distribution of the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 boosters, if authorized, to help protect individuals and families as we prepare for potential fall and winter surges,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the statement.

Earlier this year, the FDA ordered vaccine makers such as Pfizer and Moderna to update their shots to target BA.4 and BA.5, which are better at escaping immunity from earlier vaccines and previous infections.

The United States has a contract to buy 105 million of the Pfizer doses and 66 million of the Moderna doses, according to The Associated Press. Moderna is expected to file its FDA application soon as well.

The new shots target both the original spike protein on the coronavirus and the spike mutations carried by BA.4 and BA.5. For now, BA.5 is causing 89% of new infections in the United States, followed by BA.4.6 with 6.3% and BA.4 with 4.3%, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

There’s no way to tell if BA.5 will still be the dominant strain this winter or if new variant will replace it, the AP reported. But public health officials have supported the updated boosters as a way to target the most recent strains and increase immunity again.

On Aug. 15, Great Britain became the first country to authorize another one of Moderna’s updated vaccines, which adds protection against BA.1, or the original Omicron strain that became dominant in the winter of 2021-2022. European regulators are considering this shot, the AP reported, but the United States opted not to use this version since new Omicron variants have become dominant.

To approve the latest Pfizer shot, the FDA will rely on scientific testing of prior updates to the vaccine, rather than the newest boosters, to decide whether to fast-track the updated shots for fall, the AP reported. This method is like how flu vaccines are updated each year without large studies that take months.

Previously, Pfizer announced results from a study that found the earlier Omicron update significantly boosted antibodies capable of fighting the BA.1 variant and provided some protection against BA.4 and BA.5. The company’s latest FDA application contains that data and animal testing on the newest booster, the AP reported.

Pfizer will start a trial using the BA.4/BA.5 booster in coming weeks to get more data on how well the latest shot works. Moderna has begun a similar study.

The full results from these studies won’t be available before a fall booster campaign, which is why the FDA and public health officials have called for an updated shot to be ready for distribution in September.

“It’s clear that none of these vaccines are going to completely prevent infection,” Rachel Presti, MD, a researcher with the Moderna trial and an infectious diseases specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, told the AP.

But previous studies of variant booster candidates have shown that “you still get a broader immune response giving a variant booster than giving the same booster,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer has sent an application to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization of its updated COVID-19 booster vaccine for the fall of 2022, the company announced on Aug. 22.

The vaccine, which is adapted for the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants, would be meant for ages 12 and older. If authorized by the FDA, the doses could ship as soon as September.

“Having rapidly scaled up production, we are positioned to immediately begin distribution of the bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 boosters, if authorized, to help protect individuals and families as we prepare for potential fall and winter surges,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the statement.

Earlier this year, the FDA ordered vaccine makers such as Pfizer and Moderna to update their shots to target BA.4 and BA.5, which are better at escaping immunity from earlier vaccines and previous infections.

The United States has a contract to buy 105 million of the Pfizer doses and 66 million of the Moderna doses, according to The Associated Press. Moderna is expected to file its FDA application soon as well.

The new shots target both the original spike protein on the coronavirus and the spike mutations carried by BA.4 and BA.5. For now, BA.5 is causing 89% of new infections in the United States, followed by BA.4.6 with 6.3% and BA.4 with 4.3%, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

There’s no way to tell if BA.5 will still be the dominant strain this winter or if new variant will replace it, the AP reported. But public health officials have supported the updated boosters as a way to target the most recent strains and increase immunity again.

On Aug. 15, Great Britain became the first country to authorize another one of Moderna’s updated vaccines, which adds protection against BA.1, or the original Omicron strain that became dominant in the winter of 2021-2022. European regulators are considering this shot, the AP reported, but the United States opted not to use this version since new Omicron variants have become dominant.

To approve the latest Pfizer shot, the FDA will rely on scientific testing of prior updates to the vaccine, rather than the newest boosters, to decide whether to fast-track the updated shots for fall, the AP reported. This method is like how flu vaccines are updated each year without large studies that take months.

Previously, Pfizer announced results from a study that found the earlier Omicron update significantly boosted antibodies capable of fighting the BA.1 variant and provided some protection against BA.4 and BA.5. The company’s latest FDA application contains that data and animal testing on the newest booster, the AP reported.

Pfizer will start a trial using the BA.4/BA.5 booster in coming weeks to get more data on how well the latest shot works. Moderna has begun a similar study.

The full results from these studies won’t be available before a fall booster campaign, which is why the FDA and public health officials have called for an updated shot to be ready for distribution in September.

“It’s clear that none of these vaccines are going to completely prevent infection,” Rachel Presti, MD, a researcher with the Moderna trial and an infectious diseases specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, told the AP.

But previous studies of variant booster candidates have shown that “you still get a broader immune response giving a variant booster than giving the same booster,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases appears to be effective, according to a study providing real-world data.

Subcutaneous treatment could reduce direct health care costs because no infusion equipment is necessary, as well as societal costs because patients don’t need to take time off work or travel to infusion locations, wrote the researchers, led by Adriaan Volkers, MD, a doctoral candidate in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands.

“The option of a SC formulation of VDZ [vedolizumab] offers patients a choice regarding the route of administration,” they wrote. The study was published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Dr. Volkers and colleagues assessed the effectiveness, safety, drug discontinuation, and pharmacokinetics of a switch from intravenous to subcutaneous maintenance vedolizumab in a prospective real-world cohort of patients from two separate studies in The Netherlands between July 2020 and November 2021.

The cohort comprised 135 adults who had greater than 4 months of IV vedolizumab: 82 patients with Crohn’s disease and 53 with ulcerative colitis. Prospective follow-up took place during scheduled outpatient clinic visits at weeks 12 and 24 after switching administration. Patients received 108 mg of subcutaneous vedolizumab once every 2 weeks.

Overall, 16 patients (11.9%) discontinued subcutaneous administration, including 11 patients (13.4%) with Crohn’s disease who stopped after a median of 18 weeks, as well as 5 patients (9.4%) with ulcerative colitis who stopped after a median of 6 weeks. Four patients, who all had Crohn’s disease, discontinued vedolizumab and switched to a different treatment because of loss of response. Nine patients switched back to IV administration because of adverse events, and three switched back because of fear of needles.

In total, there were 59 adverse events and 13 infections that were possibly or probably related to subcutaneous injection among 42 patients. The most common adverse events that were probably related were injection site reactions such as pain or swelling, reported among 15 patients, and headaches, reported among 6 patients.

At the initiation of therapy, 57 of 81 Crohn’s disease patients (70.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 53 of 80 (66.3%) were in biochemical remission, which was defined as C-reactive protein levels of 5 mg/L or less and fecal calprotectin levels of 250 mcg/g or less. For ulcerative colitis patients, 35 of 49 (71.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 41 of 51 (80.4%) were in biochemical remission. Median clinical and biochemical disease levels remained stable after the switch to subcutaneous treatment and weren’t significantly different, compared with baseline measurements.

Median vedolizumab serum concentrations increased from 19 mcg/mL at the time of the switch to 31 mcg/mL at 12 weeks after the switch and 37 mcg/mL at 24 weeks. Serum concentrations of less than 25 mcg/mL were associated with lower rates of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, and serum concentrations of greater than 40 mcg/mL were associated with higher biochemical remission rates.

Importantly, there was no association between vedolizumab serum concentrations and the risk of adverse events that were deemed probably related to subcutaneous injection or infections.

“The most important point to understand here is that SC VDZ can be used to maintain clinical remission after IV VDZ induction in a real-world setting,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at Washington University, St. Louis.

Dr. DeBosch, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that previous data have indicated that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous treatment after a 6-week induction is superior to placebo in maintaining clinical and biochemical remission. However, studies haven’t quantified the optimal timing and therapeutic efficacy of switching.

“This is critical to quantify because SC VDZ has slower and lower peak bioavailability when compared with IV administration,” he said. “These data indicate that IV induction overcomes the known pharmacokinetic limitations of SC VDZ during the induction phase.”

However, there are still some limitations and areas for future research around switching administration, Dr. DeBosch noted.

“A key comparison lacking in the study is the mean and trough serum VDZ, and proportion of patients with relapsing disease in patients on continued IV VDZ,” he said. “Yet, these data nevertheless indicate that tandem IV-SC drug administration can maximize the induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, while also mitigating some of the barriers associated with long-term, continued IV VDZ administration.”

The study authors reported advisory fees and speaker fees from several pharmaceutical companies, and some authors have received funding or served on advisory boards for Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures vedolizumab. Dr. DeBosch reported no relevant disclosures.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases appears to be effective, according to a study providing real-world data.

Subcutaneous treatment could reduce direct health care costs because no infusion equipment is necessary, as well as societal costs because patients don’t need to take time off work or travel to infusion locations, wrote the researchers, led by Adriaan Volkers, MD, a doctoral candidate in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands.

“The option of a SC formulation of VDZ [vedolizumab] offers patients a choice regarding the route of administration,” they wrote. The study was published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Dr. Volkers and colleagues assessed the effectiveness, safety, drug discontinuation, and pharmacokinetics of a switch from intravenous to subcutaneous maintenance vedolizumab in a prospective real-world cohort of patients from two separate studies in The Netherlands between July 2020 and November 2021.

The cohort comprised 135 adults who had greater than 4 months of IV vedolizumab: 82 patients with Crohn’s disease and 53 with ulcerative colitis. Prospective follow-up took place during scheduled outpatient clinic visits at weeks 12 and 24 after switching administration. Patients received 108 mg of subcutaneous vedolizumab once every 2 weeks.

Overall, 16 patients (11.9%) discontinued subcutaneous administration, including 11 patients (13.4%) with Crohn’s disease who stopped after a median of 18 weeks, as well as 5 patients (9.4%) with ulcerative colitis who stopped after a median of 6 weeks. Four patients, who all had Crohn’s disease, discontinued vedolizumab and switched to a different treatment because of loss of response. Nine patients switched back to IV administration because of adverse events, and three switched back because of fear of needles.

In total, there were 59 adverse events and 13 infections that were possibly or probably related to subcutaneous injection among 42 patients. The most common adverse events that were probably related were injection site reactions such as pain or swelling, reported among 15 patients, and headaches, reported among 6 patients.

At the initiation of therapy, 57 of 81 Crohn’s disease patients (70.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 53 of 80 (66.3%) were in biochemical remission, which was defined as C-reactive protein levels of 5 mg/L or less and fecal calprotectin levels of 250 mcg/g or less. For ulcerative colitis patients, 35 of 49 (71.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 41 of 51 (80.4%) were in biochemical remission. Median clinical and biochemical disease levels remained stable after the switch to subcutaneous treatment and weren’t significantly different, compared with baseline measurements.

Median vedolizumab serum concentrations increased from 19 mcg/mL at the time of the switch to 31 mcg/mL at 12 weeks after the switch and 37 mcg/mL at 24 weeks. Serum concentrations of less than 25 mcg/mL were associated with lower rates of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, and serum concentrations of greater than 40 mcg/mL were associated with higher biochemical remission rates.

Importantly, there was no association between vedolizumab serum concentrations and the risk of adverse events that were deemed probably related to subcutaneous injection or infections.

“The most important point to understand here is that SC VDZ can be used to maintain clinical remission after IV VDZ induction in a real-world setting,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at Washington University, St. Louis.

Dr. DeBosch, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that previous data have indicated that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous treatment after a 6-week induction is superior to placebo in maintaining clinical and biochemical remission. However, studies haven’t quantified the optimal timing and therapeutic efficacy of switching.

“This is critical to quantify because SC VDZ has slower and lower peak bioavailability when compared with IV administration,” he said. “These data indicate that IV induction overcomes the known pharmacokinetic limitations of SC VDZ during the induction phase.”

However, there are still some limitations and areas for future research around switching administration, Dr. DeBosch noted.

“A key comparison lacking in the study is the mean and trough serum VDZ, and proportion of patients with relapsing disease in patients on continued IV VDZ,” he said. “Yet, these data nevertheless indicate that tandem IV-SC drug administration can maximize the induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, while also mitigating some of the barriers associated with long-term, continued IV VDZ administration.”

The study authors reported advisory fees and speaker fees from several pharmaceutical companies, and some authors have received funding or served on advisory boards for Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures vedolizumab. Dr. DeBosch reported no relevant disclosures.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases appears to be effective, according to a study providing real-world data.

Subcutaneous treatment could reduce direct health care costs because no infusion equipment is necessary, as well as societal costs because patients don’t need to take time off work or travel to infusion locations, wrote the researchers, led by Adriaan Volkers, MD, a doctoral candidate in gastroenterology and hepatology at the Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands.

“The option of a SC formulation of VDZ [vedolizumab] offers patients a choice regarding the route of administration,” they wrote. The study was published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Dr. Volkers and colleagues assessed the effectiveness, safety, drug discontinuation, and pharmacokinetics of a switch from intravenous to subcutaneous maintenance vedolizumab in a prospective real-world cohort of patients from two separate studies in The Netherlands between July 2020 and November 2021.

The cohort comprised 135 adults who had greater than 4 months of IV vedolizumab: 82 patients with Crohn’s disease and 53 with ulcerative colitis. Prospective follow-up took place during scheduled outpatient clinic visits at weeks 12 and 24 after switching administration. Patients received 108 mg of subcutaneous vedolizumab once every 2 weeks.

Overall, 16 patients (11.9%) discontinued subcutaneous administration, including 11 patients (13.4%) with Crohn’s disease who stopped after a median of 18 weeks, as well as 5 patients (9.4%) with ulcerative colitis who stopped after a median of 6 weeks. Four patients, who all had Crohn’s disease, discontinued vedolizumab and switched to a different treatment because of loss of response. Nine patients switched back to IV administration because of adverse events, and three switched back because of fear of needles.

In total, there were 59 adverse events and 13 infections that were possibly or probably related to subcutaneous injection among 42 patients. The most common adverse events that were probably related were injection site reactions such as pain or swelling, reported among 15 patients, and headaches, reported among 6 patients.

At the initiation of therapy, 57 of 81 Crohn’s disease patients (70.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 53 of 80 (66.3%) were in biochemical remission, which was defined as C-reactive protein levels of 5 mg/L or less and fecal calprotectin levels of 250 mcg/g or less. For ulcerative colitis patients, 35 of 49 (71.4%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission and 41 of 51 (80.4%) were in biochemical remission. Median clinical and biochemical disease levels remained stable after the switch to subcutaneous treatment and weren’t significantly different, compared with baseline measurements.

Median vedolizumab serum concentrations increased from 19 mcg/mL at the time of the switch to 31 mcg/mL at 12 weeks after the switch and 37 mcg/mL at 24 weeks. Serum concentrations of less than 25 mcg/mL were associated with lower rates of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, and serum concentrations of greater than 40 mcg/mL were associated with higher biochemical remission rates.

Importantly, there was no association between vedolizumab serum concentrations and the risk of adverse events that were deemed probably related to subcutaneous injection or infections.

“The most important point to understand here is that SC VDZ can be used to maintain clinical remission after IV VDZ induction in a real-world setting,” said Brian DeBosch, MD, PhD, associate professor of cell biology and physiology at Washington University, St. Louis.

Dr. DeBosch, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that previous data have indicated that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous treatment after a 6-week induction is superior to placebo in maintaining clinical and biochemical remission. However, studies haven’t quantified the optimal timing and therapeutic efficacy of switching.

“This is critical to quantify because SC VDZ has slower and lower peak bioavailability when compared with IV administration,” he said. “These data indicate that IV induction overcomes the known pharmacokinetic limitations of SC VDZ during the induction phase.”

However, there are still some limitations and areas for future research around switching administration, Dr. DeBosch noted.

“A key comparison lacking in the study is the mean and trough serum VDZ, and proportion of patients with relapsing disease in patients on continued IV VDZ,” he said. “Yet, these data nevertheless indicate that tandem IV-SC drug administration can maximize the induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, while also mitigating some of the barriers associated with long-term, continued IV VDZ administration.”

The study authors reported advisory fees and speaker fees from several pharmaceutical companies, and some authors have received funding or served on advisory boards for Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures vedolizumab. Dr. DeBosch reported no relevant disclosures.