Miriam E. Tucker

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

People experiencing long-term symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection are increasingly meeting criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a phenomenon that highlights the need for unified research and clinical approaches, speakers said at a press briefing March 25 held by the advocacy group MEAction.

“Post-COVID lingering illness was predictable. Similar lingering fatigue syndromes have been reported in the scientific literature for nearly 100 years, following a variety of well-documented infections with viruses, bacteria, fungi, and even protozoa,” said Anthony Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Core criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise (PEM), or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

Patients with ME/CFS also commonly experience painful headaches, muscle or joint aches, and allergies/other sensitivities. Although many patients can trace their symptoms to an initiating infection, “the cause is often unclear because the diagnosis is often delayed for months or years after symptom onset,” said Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, who leads a clinician coalition that aims to improve ME/CFS management.

In an international survey of 3762 COVID-19 “long-haulers” published in a preprint in December of 2020, the most frequent symptoms reported at least 6 months after illness onset were fatigue in 78%, PEM in 72%, and cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”) in 55%. At the time of the survey, 45% reported requiring reduced work schedules because of their illness, and 22% reported being unable to work at all.

Dr. Bateman said those findings align with her experience so far with 12 COVID-19 “long haulers” who self-referred to her ME/CFS and fibromyalgia specialty clinic. Nine of the 12 met criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) based on the 10-minute NASA Lean Test, she said, and half also met the 2016 American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia.

“Some were severely impaired. We suspect a small fiber polyneuropathy in about half, and mast cell activation syndrome in more than half. We look forward to doing more testing,” Dr. Bateman said.

To be sure, Dr. Komaroff noted, there are some differences. “Long COVID” patients will often experience breathlessness and ongoing anosmia (loss of taste and smell), which aren’t typical of ME/CFS.

But, he said, “many of the symptoms are quite similar ... My guess is that ME/CFS is an illness with a final common pathway that can be triggered by different things,” said Dr. Komaroff, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Health Letter.

Based on previous data about CFS suggesting a 10% rate of symptoms persisting at least a year following a variety of infectious agents and the predicted 200 million COVID-19 cases globally by the end of 2021, Dr. Komaroff estimated that about 20 million cases of “long COVID” would be expected in the next year.

‘A huge investment’

On the research side, the National Institutes of Health recently appropriated $1.15 billion dollars over the next 4 years to investigate “the heterogeneity in the recovery process after COVID and to develop treatments for those suffering from [postacute COVID-19 syndrome]” according to a Feb. 5, 2021, blog from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).

That same day, another NINDS blog announced “new resources for large-scale ME/CFS research” and emphasized the tie-in with long–COVID-19 syndrome.

“That’s a huge investment. In my opinion, there will be several lingering illnesses following COVID,” Dr. Komaroff said, adding, “It’s my bet that long COVID will prove to be caused by certain kinds of abnormalities in the brain, some of the same abnormalities already identified in ME/CFS. Research will determine whether that’s right or wrong.”

In 2017, NINDS had announced a large increase in funding for ME/CFS research, including the creation of four dedicated research centers. In April 2019, NINDS held a 2-day conference highlighting that ongoing work, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

During the briefing, NINDS clinical director Avindra Nath, MD, described a comprehensive ongoing ME/CFS intramural study he’s been leading since 2016.

He’s now also overseeing two long–COVID-19 studies, one of which has a protocol similar to that of the ME/CFS study and will include individuals who are still experiencing long-term symptoms following confirmed cases of COVID-19. The aim is to screen about 1,300 patients. Several task forces are now examining all of these data together.

“Each aspect is now being analyzed … What we learn from one applies to the other,” Dr. Nath said.  
 

Advice for clinicians

In interviews, Dr. Bateman and Dr. Nath offered clinical advice for managing patients who meet ME/CFS criteria, whether they had confirmed or suspected COVID-19, a different infection, or unknown trigger(s).

Dr. Bateman advised that clinicians assess patients for each of the symptoms individually. “Besides exercise intolerance and PEM, the most commonly missed is orthostatic intolerance. It really doesn’t matter what the cause is, it’s amenable to supportive treatment. It’s one aspect of the illness that contributes to severely impaired function. My plea to all physicians would be for sure to assess for [orthostatic intolerance], and gain an understanding about activity management and avoiding PEM symptoms.”

Dr. Nath noted that an often-challenging situation is when tests for the infectious agent and other blood work come back negative, yet the patient still reports multiple debilitating symptoms. This has been a particular issue with long COVID-19, since many patients became ill early in the pandemic before the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were widely available.

“The physician can only order tests that are available at their labs. I think what the physician should do is handle symptoms symptomatically but also refer patients to specialists who are taking care of these patients or to research studies,” he said.

Dr. Bateman added, “Whether they had a documented COVID infection – we just have to let go of that in 2020. Way too many people didn’t have access to a test or the timing wasn’t amenable. If people meet criteria for ME/CFS, it’s irrelevant … It’s mainly a clinical diagnosis. It’s not reliant on identifying the infectious trigger.” 

Dr. Komaroff, who began caring for then-termed “chronic fatigue syndrome” patients and researching the condition more than 30 years ago, said that “every cloud has its silver lining. The increased focus on postinfectious fatigue syndrome is a silver lining in my mind around the terrible dark cloud that is the pandemic of COVID.”

Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune Inc., Ono Pharma, and Deallus, and grants from the NIH. Dr. Bateman is employed by the Bateman Horne Center, which receives grants from the NIH, and fees from Exagen Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical. Dr. Nath is an NIH employee.

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

People experiencing long-term symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection are increasingly meeting criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a phenomenon that highlights the need for unified research and clinical approaches, speakers said at a press briefing March 25 held by the advocacy group MEAction.

“Post-COVID lingering illness was predictable. Similar lingering fatigue syndromes have been reported in the scientific literature for nearly 100 years, following a variety of well-documented infections with viruses, bacteria, fungi, and even protozoa,” said Anthony Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Core criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise (PEM), or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

Patients with ME/CFS also commonly experience painful headaches, muscle or joint aches, and allergies/other sensitivities. Although many patients can trace their symptoms to an initiating infection, “the cause is often unclear because the diagnosis is often delayed for months or years after symptom onset,” said Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, who leads a clinician coalition that aims to improve ME/CFS management.

In an international survey of 3762 COVID-19 “long-haulers” published in a preprint in December of 2020, the most frequent symptoms reported at least 6 months after illness onset were fatigue in 78%, PEM in 72%, and cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”) in 55%. At the time of the survey, 45% reported requiring reduced work schedules because of their illness, and 22% reported being unable to work at all.

Dr. Bateman said those findings align with her experience so far with 12 COVID-19 “long haulers” who self-referred to her ME/CFS and fibromyalgia specialty clinic. Nine of the 12 met criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) based on the 10-minute NASA Lean Test, she said, and half also met the 2016 American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia.

“Some were severely impaired. We suspect a small fiber polyneuropathy in about half, and mast cell activation syndrome in more than half. We look forward to doing more testing,” Dr. Bateman said.

To be sure, Dr. Komaroff noted, there are some differences. “Long COVID” patients will often experience breathlessness and ongoing anosmia (loss of taste and smell), which aren’t typical of ME/CFS.

But, he said, “many of the symptoms are quite similar ... My guess is that ME/CFS is an illness with a final common pathway that can be triggered by different things,” said Dr. Komaroff, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Health Letter.

Based on previous data about CFS suggesting a 10% rate of symptoms persisting at least a year following a variety of infectious agents and the predicted 200 million COVID-19 cases globally by the end of 2021, Dr. Komaroff estimated that about 20 million cases of “long COVID” would be expected in the next year.

‘A huge investment’

On the research side, the National Institutes of Health recently appropriated $1.15 billion dollars over the next 4 years to investigate “the heterogeneity in the recovery process after COVID and to develop treatments for those suffering from [postacute COVID-19 syndrome]” according to a Feb. 5, 2021, blog from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).

That same day, another NINDS blog announced “new resources for large-scale ME/CFS research” and emphasized the tie-in with long–COVID-19 syndrome.

“That’s a huge investment. In my opinion, there will be several lingering illnesses following COVID,” Dr. Komaroff said, adding, “It’s my bet that long COVID will prove to be caused by certain kinds of abnormalities in the brain, some of the same abnormalities already identified in ME/CFS. Research will determine whether that’s right or wrong.”

In 2017, NINDS had announced a large increase in funding for ME/CFS research, including the creation of four dedicated research centers. In April 2019, NINDS held a 2-day conference highlighting that ongoing work, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

During the briefing, NINDS clinical director Avindra Nath, MD, described a comprehensive ongoing ME/CFS intramural study he’s been leading since 2016.

He’s now also overseeing two long–COVID-19 studies, one of which has a protocol similar to that of the ME/CFS study and will include individuals who are still experiencing long-term symptoms following confirmed cases of COVID-19. The aim is to screen about 1,300 patients. Several task forces are now examining all of these data together.

“Each aspect is now being analyzed … What we learn from one applies to the other,” Dr. Nath said.  
 

Advice for clinicians

In interviews, Dr. Bateman and Dr. Nath offered clinical advice for managing patients who meet ME/CFS criteria, whether they had confirmed or suspected COVID-19, a different infection, or unknown trigger(s).

Dr. Bateman advised that clinicians assess patients for each of the symptoms individually. “Besides exercise intolerance and PEM, the most commonly missed is orthostatic intolerance. It really doesn’t matter what the cause is, it’s amenable to supportive treatment. It’s one aspect of the illness that contributes to severely impaired function. My plea to all physicians would be for sure to assess for [orthostatic intolerance], and gain an understanding about activity management and avoiding PEM symptoms.”

Dr. Nath noted that an often-challenging situation is when tests for the infectious agent and other blood work come back negative, yet the patient still reports multiple debilitating symptoms. This has been a particular issue with long COVID-19, since many patients became ill early in the pandemic before the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were widely available.

“The physician can only order tests that are available at their labs. I think what the physician should do is handle symptoms symptomatically but also refer patients to specialists who are taking care of these patients or to research studies,” he said.

Dr. Bateman added, “Whether they had a documented COVID infection – we just have to let go of that in 2020. Way too many people didn’t have access to a test or the timing wasn’t amenable. If people meet criteria for ME/CFS, it’s irrelevant … It’s mainly a clinical diagnosis. It’s not reliant on identifying the infectious trigger.” 

Dr. Komaroff, who began caring for then-termed “chronic fatigue syndrome” patients and researching the condition more than 30 years ago, said that “every cloud has its silver lining. The increased focus on postinfectious fatigue syndrome is a silver lining in my mind around the terrible dark cloud that is the pandemic of COVID.”

Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune Inc., Ono Pharma, and Deallus, and grants from the NIH. Dr. Bateman is employed by the Bateman Horne Center, which receives grants from the NIH, and fees from Exagen Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical. Dr. Nath is an NIH employee.

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

People experiencing long-term symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection are increasingly meeting criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a phenomenon that highlights the need for unified research and clinical approaches, speakers said at a press briefing March 25 held by the advocacy group MEAction.

“Post-COVID lingering illness was predictable. Similar lingering fatigue syndromes have been reported in the scientific literature for nearly 100 years, following a variety of well-documented infections with viruses, bacteria, fungi, and even protozoa,” said Anthony Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Core criteria for ME/CFS established by the Institute of Medicine in 2015 include substantial decrement in functioning for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise (PEM), or a worsening of symptoms following even minor exertion (often described as “crashes”), unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

Patients with ME/CFS also commonly experience painful headaches, muscle or joint aches, and allergies/other sensitivities. Although many patients can trace their symptoms to an initiating infection, “the cause is often unclear because the diagnosis is often delayed for months or years after symptom onset,” said Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, who leads a clinician coalition that aims to improve ME/CFS management.

In an international survey of 3762 COVID-19 “long-haulers” published in a preprint in December of 2020, the most frequent symptoms reported at least 6 months after illness onset were fatigue in 78%, PEM in 72%, and cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”) in 55%. At the time of the survey, 45% reported requiring reduced work schedules because of their illness, and 22% reported being unable to work at all.

Dr. Bateman said those findings align with her experience so far with 12 COVID-19 “long haulers” who self-referred to her ME/CFS and fibromyalgia specialty clinic. Nine of the 12 met criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) based on the 10-minute NASA Lean Test, she said, and half also met the 2016 American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia.

“Some were severely impaired. We suspect a small fiber polyneuropathy in about half, and mast cell activation syndrome in more than half. We look forward to doing more testing,” Dr. Bateman said.

To be sure, Dr. Komaroff noted, there are some differences. “Long COVID” patients will often experience breathlessness and ongoing anosmia (loss of taste and smell), which aren’t typical of ME/CFS.

But, he said, “many of the symptoms are quite similar ... My guess is that ME/CFS is an illness with a final common pathway that can be triggered by different things,” said Dr. Komaroff, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Health Letter.

Based on previous data about CFS suggesting a 10% rate of symptoms persisting at least a year following a variety of infectious agents and the predicted 200 million COVID-19 cases globally by the end of 2021, Dr. Komaroff estimated that about 20 million cases of “long COVID” would be expected in the next year.

‘A huge investment’

On the research side, the National Institutes of Health recently appropriated $1.15 billion dollars over the next 4 years to investigate “the heterogeneity in the recovery process after COVID and to develop treatments for those suffering from [postacute COVID-19 syndrome]” according to a Feb. 5, 2021, blog from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).

That same day, another NINDS blog announced “new resources for large-scale ME/CFS research” and emphasized the tie-in with long–COVID-19 syndrome.

“That’s a huge investment. In my opinion, there will be several lingering illnesses following COVID,” Dr. Komaroff said, adding, “It’s my bet that long COVID will prove to be caused by certain kinds of abnormalities in the brain, some of the same abnormalities already identified in ME/CFS. Research will determine whether that’s right or wrong.”

In 2017, NINDS had announced a large increase in funding for ME/CFS research, including the creation of four dedicated research centers. In April 2019, NINDS held a 2-day conference highlighting that ongoing work, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

During the briefing, NINDS clinical director Avindra Nath, MD, described a comprehensive ongoing ME/CFS intramural study he’s been leading since 2016.

He’s now also overseeing two long–COVID-19 studies, one of which has a protocol similar to that of the ME/CFS study and will include individuals who are still experiencing long-term symptoms following confirmed cases of COVID-19. The aim is to screen about 1,300 patients. Several task forces are now examining all of these data together.

“Each aspect is now being analyzed … What we learn from one applies to the other,” Dr. Nath said.  
 

Advice for clinicians

In interviews, Dr. Bateman and Dr. Nath offered clinical advice for managing patients who meet ME/CFS criteria, whether they had confirmed or suspected COVID-19, a different infection, or unknown trigger(s).

Dr. Bateman advised that clinicians assess patients for each of the symptoms individually. “Besides exercise intolerance and PEM, the most commonly missed is orthostatic intolerance. It really doesn’t matter what the cause is, it’s amenable to supportive treatment. It’s one aspect of the illness that contributes to severely impaired function. My plea to all physicians would be for sure to assess for [orthostatic intolerance], and gain an understanding about activity management and avoiding PEM symptoms.”

Dr. Nath noted that an often-challenging situation is when tests for the infectious agent and other blood work come back negative, yet the patient still reports multiple debilitating symptoms. This has been a particular issue with long COVID-19, since many patients became ill early in the pandemic before the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were widely available.

“The physician can only order tests that are available at their labs. I think what the physician should do is handle symptoms symptomatically but also refer patients to specialists who are taking care of these patients or to research studies,” he said.

Dr. Bateman added, “Whether they had a documented COVID infection – we just have to let go of that in 2020. Way too many people didn’t have access to a test or the timing wasn’t amenable. If people meet criteria for ME/CFS, it’s irrelevant … It’s mainly a clinical diagnosis. It’s not reliant on identifying the infectious trigger.” 

Dr. Komaroff, who began caring for then-termed “chronic fatigue syndrome” patients and researching the condition more than 30 years ago, said that “every cloud has its silver lining. The increased focus on postinfectious fatigue syndrome is a silver lining in my mind around the terrible dark cloud that is the pandemic of COVID.”

Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune Inc., Ono Pharma, and Deallus, and grants from the NIH. Dr. Bateman is employed by the Bateman Horne Center, which receives grants from the NIH, and fees from Exagen Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical. Dr. Nath is an NIH employee.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Overcoming the challenges in managing type 1 diabetes can sometimes feel like an unappreciated “superpower.” That was part of the thinking behind the creation of a comic book trilogy that aims to educate people of all ages – including health care providers – about the realities of living with this condition.

The series was initially launched by a team from Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University National Health Service Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. It is now officially backed by the NHS. The first book in the trilogy, published in 2016, visually illustrates the challenges faced by a teenage boy who had recently been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The second volume, released in 2018, follows a young girl who is hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis. The third, published in December 2020, explores the stigma associated with diabetes and delves into hypoglycemia.

Available for free online, the three comic books are meant for adults, children, health care professionals, and laypeople. This news organization spoke with series cocreator Partha Kar, MBBS, MD, national specialty adviser, Diabetes for NHS England, about the series. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

How did the idea for a comic book series about type 1 diabetes come about?Dr. Kar: My Southampton colleague Mayank Patel, BM, DM, FRCP, and I were discussing ways of reaching different audiences to raise awareness about type 1 diabetes, and we had the idea of comic books. After all, comic book movies are among the biggest blockbusters if one looks at popular culture, because it’s not just kids watching them.

One of our patients made an interesting observation that really resonated. He said having type 1 diabetes was like the Marvel Comics superhero Hulk.

Several scenes in the first publication, Type 1: Origins, were based on the Hulk, a scientist who gets a radioactive dose by accident. He doesn’t like turning green when he’s angry, even though he also becomes very strong. He basically spends the rest of his life trying to find the cure for himself, but he eventually makes the best of his two worlds – Professor and Hulk – rather than constantly fighting his situation.

The story line was primarily written by a group of patients with type 1 diabetes based on their own experiences. Mayank and I were mostly just supervising and financing the project. The graphics and layout were done by Revolve Comics, a publisher specializing in health education via the comic book medium.

Our aim was to bring awareness of type 1 diabetes to people who don’t have diabetes, including teachers, family members, and friends. At the end of Origins, we provide a list of online resources for more information and for social connection.

Since it launched in October 2016, Origins has been downloaded nearly 10,000 times. Lots of local charities and schools have picked it up. Parents and kids have come to us asking for more and giving us ideas. That’s what prompted the next one.

 

The second volume, Type 1: Attack of the Ketones, is more technical and somewhat surprising in that it portrays some hospital staff members as not well-informed about type 1 diabetes. Are they part of the intended audience?

Yes, this one was directed a little bit more towards professionals, hospitals, and staff. It’s also informed by patient feedback, and dovetails with my efforts to improve hospital care for people with type 1 diabetes. But of course, patients and interested laypeople can also learn from it.

A theme in volume 2 comes from another Marvel Comics superhero, Iron Man. In the movie, when Tony Stark’s heart is severely damaged with shrapnel, he acquires an arc reactor that keeps him alive and also powers the suit that gives him superpowers. After the reactor is taken away, he devises a way to replace the missing part and reassemble the suit.

Similarly, in type 1 diabetes, the ability to produce insulin has been taken away without permission. But what is missing can thankfully be replaced, albeit imperfectly. As we illustrate, things don’t always go to plan despite best efforts to administer insulin in the right dose at the right time.

At the end of Attack of the Ketones, we provide two pages of text about recognizing and managing hyperglycemia and preventing diabetic ketoacidosis. This volume was funded by NHS England and then backed by JDRF and Diabetes UK, and many hospitals picked it up. It has had about 8,000 downloads.

 

In Volume 3, you explore stigma and the issue of language regarding type 1 diabetes. How did those topics come about?

Kar: Type 1 Mission 3: S.T.I.G.M.A. was also based on patient feedback, with input from some Indian diabetes groups I’ve worked with. Here, the protagonist is a young man with type 1 diabetes who goes on holiday to India, where diabetes stigma is widespread. The characters address language problems such as use of the word “diabetic” to label a person, and they counter misconceptions such as that diabetes is contagious. There’s an Indian comic book version of this volume out now.

The main character of this volume experiences severe hypoglycemia and is saved by a glucagon injection from a colleague, one of several presented as superheroes who help in the fight to end diabetes stigma. They are referred to as Guardians of the Glucose, a take on yet another Marvel franchise, Guardians of the Galaxy.

At the end of this volume, we provide two pages of text about recognizing, managing, and preventing hypoglycemia. Again, we hope to educate as wide an audience as possible.
 

At the end of volume 3, you also briefly mention the COVID-19 pandemic. Will there be a fourth volume dealing with that, or other topics, such as diabetes technology?

We’ve left it open. We want to see how volume 3 lands. Depending on that, we might take it forward. There are certainly plenty of topics to tackle. We’ve also discussed moving into gaming or virtual reality. Overall, we hope to educate people by engaging them in different ways.

Dr. Kar has been a consultant diabetologist/endocrinologist within the NHS since 2008. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Overcoming the challenges in managing type 1 diabetes can sometimes feel like an unappreciated “superpower.” That was part of the thinking behind the creation of a comic book trilogy that aims to educate people of all ages – including health care providers – about the realities of living with this condition.

The series was initially launched by a team from Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University National Health Service Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. It is now officially backed by the NHS. The first book in the trilogy, published in 2016, visually illustrates the challenges faced by a teenage boy who had recently been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The second volume, released in 2018, follows a young girl who is hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis. The third, published in December 2020, explores the stigma associated with diabetes and delves into hypoglycemia.

Available for free online, the three comic books are meant for adults, children, health care professionals, and laypeople. This news organization spoke with series cocreator Partha Kar, MBBS, MD, national specialty adviser, Diabetes for NHS England, about the series. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

How did the idea for a comic book series about type 1 diabetes come about?Dr. Kar: My Southampton colleague Mayank Patel, BM, DM, FRCP, and I were discussing ways of reaching different audiences to raise awareness about type 1 diabetes, and we had the idea of comic books. After all, comic book movies are among the biggest blockbusters if one looks at popular culture, because it’s not just kids watching them.

One of our patients made an interesting observation that really resonated. He said having type 1 diabetes was like the Marvel Comics superhero Hulk.

Several scenes in the first publication, Type 1: Origins, were based on the Hulk, a scientist who gets a radioactive dose by accident. He doesn’t like turning green when he’s angry, even though he also becomes very strong. He basically spends the rest of his life trying to find the cure for himself, but he eventually makes the best of his two worlds – Professor and Hulk – rather than constantly fighting his situation.

The story line was primarily written by a group of patients with type 1 diabetes based on their own experiences. Mayank and I were mostly just supervising and financing the project. The graphics and layout were done by Revolve Comics, a publisher specializing in health education via the comic book medium.

Our aim was to bring awareness of type 1 diabetes to people who don’t have diabetes, including teachers, family members, and friends. At the end of Origins, we provide a list of online resources for more information and for social connection.

Since it launched in October 2016, Origins has been downloaded nearly 10,000 times. Lots of local charities and schools have picked it up. Parents and kids have come to us asking for more and giving us ideas. That’s what prompted the next one.

 

The second volume, Type 1: Attack of the Ketones, is more technical and somewhat surprising in that it portrays some hospital staff members as not well-informed about type 1 diabetes. Are they part of the intended audience?

Yes, this one was directed a little bit more towards professionals, hospitals, and staff. It’s also informed by patient feedback, and dovetails with my efforts to improve hospital care for people with type 1 diabetes. But of course, patients and interested laypeople can also learn from it.

A theme in volume 2 comes from another Marvel Comics superhero, Iron Man. In the movie, when Tony Stark’s heart is severely damaged with shrapnel, he acquires an arc reactor that keeps him alive and also powers the suit that gives him superpowers. After the reactor is taken away, he devises a way to replace the missing part and reassemble the suit.

Similarly, in type 1 diabetes, the ability to produce insulin has been taken away without permission. But what is missing can thankfully be replaced, albeit imperfectly. As we illustrate, things don’t always go to plan despite best efforts to administer insulin in the right dose at the right time.

At the end of Attack of the Ketones, we provide two pages of text about recognizing and managing hyperglycemia and preventing diabetic ketoacidosis. This volume was funded by NHS England and then backed by JDRF and Diabetes UK, and many hospitals picked it up. It has had about 8,000 downloads.

 

In Volume 3, you explore stigma and the issue of language regarding type 1 diabetes. How did those topics come about?

Kar: Type 1 Mission 3: S.T.I.G.M.A. was also based on patient feedback, with input from some Indian diabetes groups I’ve worked with. Here, the protagonist is a young man with type 1 diabetes who goes on holiday to India, where diabetes stigma is widespread. The characters address language problems such as use of the word “diabetic” to label a person, and they counter misconceptions such as that diabetes is contagious. There’s an Indian comic book version of this volume out now.

The main character of this volume experiences severe hypoglycemia and is saved by a glucagon injection from a colleague, one of several presented as superheroes who help in the fight to end diabetes stigma. They are referred to as Guardians of the Glucose, a take on yet another Marvel franchise, Guardians of the Galaxy.

At the end of this volume, we provide two pages of text about recognizing, managing, and preventing hypoglycemia. Again, we hope to educate as wide an audience as possible.
 

At the end of volume 3, you also briefly mention the COVID-19 pandemic. Will there be a fourth volume dealing with that, or other topics, such as diabetes technology?

We’ve left it open. We want to see how volume 3 lands. Depending on that, we might take it forward. There are certainly plenty of topics to tackle. We’ve also discussed moving into gaming or virtual reality. Overall, we hope to educate people by engaging them in different ways.

Dr. Kar has been a consultant diabetologist/endocrinologist within the NHS since 2008. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Overcoming the challenges in managing type 1 diabetes can sometimes feel like an unappreciated “superpower.” That was part of the thinking behind the creation of a comic book trilogy that aims to educate people of all ages – including health care providers – about the realities of living with this condition.

The series was initially launched by a team from Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University National Health Service Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. It is now officially backed by the NHS. The first book in the trilogy, published in 2016, visually illustrates the challenges faced by a teenage boy who had recently been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The second volume, released in 2018, follows a young girl who is hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis. The third, published in December 2020, explores the stigma associated with diabetes and delves into hypoglycemia.

Available for free online, the three comic books are meant for adults, children, health care professionals, and laypeople. This news organization spoke with series cocreator Partha Kar, MBBS, MD, national specialty adviser, Diabetes for NHS England, about the series. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

How did the idea for a comic book series about type 1 diabetes come about?Dr. Kar: My Southampton colleague Mayank Patel, BM, DM, FRCP, and I were discussing ways of reaching different audiences to raise awareness about type 1 diabetes, and we had the idea of comic books. After all, comic book movies are among the biggest blockbusters if one looks at popular culture, because it’s not just kids watching them.

One of our patients made an interesting observation that really resonated. He said having type 1 diabetes was like the Marvel Comics superhero Hulk.

Several scenes in the first publication, Type 1: Origins, were based on the Hulk, a scientist who gets a radioactive dose by accident. He doesn’t like turning green when he’s angry, even though he also becomes very strong. He basically spends the rest of his life trying to find the cure for himself, but he eventually makes the best of his two worlds – Professor and Hulk – rather than constantly fighting his situation.

The story line was primarily written by a group of patients with type 1 diabetes based on their own experiences. Mayank and I were mostly just supervising and financing the project. The graphics and layout were done by Revolve Comics, a publisher specializing in health education via the comic book medium.

Our aim was to bring awareness of type 1 diabetes to people who don’t have diabetes, including teachers, family members, and friends. At the end of Origins, we provide a list of online resources for more information and for social connection.

Since it launched in October 2016, Origins has been downloaded nearly 10,000 times. Lots of local charities and schools have picked it up. Parents and kids have come to us asking for more and giving us ideas. That’s what prompted the next one.

 

The second volume, Type 1: Attack of the Ketones, is more technical and somewhat surprising in that it portrays some hospital staff members as not well-informed about type 1 diabetes. Are they part of the intended audience?

Yes, this one was directed a little bit more towards professionals, hospitals, and staff. It’s also informed by patient feedback, and dovetails with my efforts to improve hospital care for people with type 1 diabetes. But of course, patients and interested laypeople can also learn from it.

A theme in volume 2 comes from another Marvel Comics superhero, Iron Man. In the movie, when Tony Stark’s heart is severely damaged with shrapnel, he acquires an arc reactor that keeps him alive and also powers the suit that gives him superpowers. After the reactor is taken away, he devises a way to replace the missing part and reassemble the suit.

Similarly, in type 1 diabetes, the ability to produce insulin has been taken away without permission. But what is missing can thankfully be replaced, albeit imperfectly. As we illustrate, things don’t always go to plan despite best efforts to administer insulin in the right dose at the right time.

At the end of Attack of the Ketones, we provide two pages of text about recognizing and managing hyperglycemia and preventing diabetic ketoacidosis. This volume was funded by NHS England and then backed by JDRF and Diabetes UK, and many hospitals picked it up. It has had about 8,000 downloads.

 

In Volume 3, you explore stigma and the issue of language regarding type 1 diabetes. How did those topics come about?

Kar: Type 1 Mission 3: S.T.I.G.M.A. was also based on patient feedback, with input from some Indian diabetes groups I’ve worked with. Here, the protagonist is a young man with type 1 diabetes who goes on holiday to India, where diabetes stigma is widespread. The characters address language problems such as use of the word “diabetic” to label a person, and they counter misconceptions such as that diabetes is contagious. There’s an Indian comic book version of this volume out now.

The main character of this volume experiences severe hypoglycemia and is saved by a glucagon injection from a colleague, one of several presented as superheroes who help in the fight to end diabetes stigma. They are referred to as Guardians of the Glucose, a take on yet another Marvel franchise, Guardians of the Galaxy.

At the end of this volume, we provide two pages of text about recognizing, managing, and preventing hypoglycemia. Again, we hope to educate as wide an audience as possible.
 

At the end of volume 3, you also briefly mention the COVID-19 pandemic. Will there be a fourth volume dealing with that, or other topics, such as diabetes technology?

We’ve left it open. We want to see how volume 3 lands. Depending on that, we might take it forward. There are certainly plenty of topics to tackle. We’ve also discussed moving into gaming or virtual reality. Overall, we hope to educate people by engaging them in different ways.

Dr. Kar has been a consultant diabetologist/endocrinologist within the NHS since 2008. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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