Clinician Reviews

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

American health care workers have remained resilient during the pandemic but are feeling the ongoing strain, with 23% saying they are likely to leave the field in the near future, according to a new poll.

About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.

“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.

“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”

The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.

A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.

Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.

If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.

“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.

During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.

What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.

Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”

Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).

Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.

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

Introduction

Amidst an aggressive vaccination campaign for COVID-19, misinformation has spread over the Internet, affecting public perception and making some people hesitant to participate in ongoing immunization campaigns. Of chief concern are issues pertaining to fertility or viability of sperm – information circulating on social networks posits that the coronavirus vaccine may influence infertility in men, which, according to physicians, is not grounded in reality. From the perspective of evidence-based medicine, there is a dearth of information suggesting an untoward effect of the vaccine on male fertility. The risk of adverse reactions arising from approved vaccines is negligible, with mild, albeit controllable, side effects demonstrated by patients in clinical trials. Therefore, there is no plausible reason for the general public to avoid vaccinations.¹

Infertility following vaccination

The source of confusion can be traced back to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; the general public has conflated a side effect of the virus, namely, infertility and erectile dysfunction, with that of the vaccine.² According to Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, director of the urology program at Miller, “We were the first to demonstrate that the COVID virus, itself, can affect male fertility and be a potential cause for erectile dysfunction. We are now the first to examine if there is any impact of the COVID vaccine on male fertility potential, which we did not find.”³

Coronavirus can indeed cause significant damage to the testicular tissue of infected men by means of mediating ACE2 expression on Leydig and Sertoli cells of the testis. It should be noted that COVID-19 may potentially attack any type of cell in the body that expresses the enzyme ACE2. However, it is particularly harmful to cells with high levels of expression of this enzyme, such as testicular cells. The spermatogenesis process can be affected, thereby posing a risk to male fertility.⁴

Expanding on the theme of fertility during the pandemic, a number of false claims^5-7 about the vaccine and its overall effect on the placenta and fertility have also emerged as a contentious topic for debate on social media; doctors continue to explain why the theories are not reasonable or a cause for concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides recommendations on COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant and/or lactating women and encourages a shared decision process involving risk/benefit assessment with the prescribing physician.⁵ Pregnant women, especially those with underlying comorbid conditions, are susceptible to developing severe symptom manifestations of COVID-19 with the disease also being associated with an increased likelihood of premature birth. As far as lactating women are concerned, the evidence thus far has indicated that the risk of side effects of the vaccine is very low, suggesting that these women could be vaccinated.⁵

The vaccine is the best option

While more studies are needed to ascertain the relationship between COVID-19 and male infertility, the vaccine is currently the best option for those who are concerned about their fertility from exposure to the coronavirus. Because of delayed wholesale acceptance of vaccines by the general population, clinicians should continue to emphasize the importance of preventive care with respect to disease exposure.⁶

In addition, those who are concerned with fertility can opt for ways to preserve their reproductive capacity, such as the removal of semen for freezing sperm, albeit with adherence to sperm-washing procedures to preclude cross-contamination from viruses.^8,9 For the preservation of sperm, the noninvasive method is often performed, preferably collected in several samples. Then, the semen is cryopreserved.⁸ In some instances, the sperm can also be removed directly from the testicles with a simple needle or by means of a minor surgical procedure.

A wait and try approach is advocated by clinicians for individuals who have already experienced COVID-19 symptoms and are therefore concerned about the prospect of childbearing.¹⁰ If the couple is unable to conceive after a year of trying, it is recommended that they consult a reproductive specialist; the clinician can carry out a comprehensive evaluation and order a series of tests to identify the source of the problem, indicating whether there are alternative methods for helping the couple to start a family (addressing the underlying factors involved in infertility, or treating via assisted reproduction procedures, such as in vitro fertilization).¹¹

Dr. Aman is faculty member at the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago, and a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF). She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical writer for the IMCHF, Montreal, is based in New York, and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF and he has no disclosures. Dr. Zia Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. Berry SD et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 May;69(5):1140-6.

2. Achua JK et al. World J Men’s Health. 2021 Jan;39(1):65-74.

3. Broderick JM. Urology Times. 2021 June.

4. Huang C et al. Andrology. 2021 Jan;9(1):80-7.

5. Sajjadi NB et al. J Osteopath Med. 2021 Apr 12;121(6):583-7.

6. Sallam M et al. Vaccines. 2021 Jan;9(1):42.

7. Islam MS et al. PloS One. 2021 May 12;16(5):e0251605.

8. Tesarik J. J Fertil Preserv. 2021;2:art246111.

9. Adiga SK et al. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020 Dec;41(6):991-7.

10. FAQs related to COVID-19. Q: If I get sick or test positive for COVID-19, when is it safe to become pregnant? American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

11. Cross C. Wellness and Prevention: Why can’t I get pregnant? John Hopkins Medicine.

Introduction

Amidst an aggressive vaccination campaign for COVID-19, misinformation has spread over the Internet, affecting public perception and making some people hesitant to participate in ongoing immunization campaigns. Of chief concern are issues pertaining to fertility or viability of sperm – information circulating on social networks posits that the coronavirus vaccine may influence infertility in men, which, according to physicians, is not grounded in reality. From the perspective of evidence-based medicine, there is a dearth of information suggesting an untoward effect of the vaccine on male fertility. The risk of adverse reactions arising from approved vaccines is negligible, with mild, albeit controllable, side effects demonstrated by patients in clinical trials. Therefore, there is no plausible reason for the general public to avoid vaccinations.¹

Infertility following vaccination

The source of confusion can be traced back to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; the general public has conflated a side effect of the virus, namely, infertility and erectile dysfunction, with that of the vaccine.² According to Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, director of the urology program at Miller, “We were the first to demonstrate that the COVID virus, itself, can affect male fertility and be a potential cause for erectile dysfunction. We are now the first to examine if there is any impact of the COVID vaccine on male fertility potential, which we did not find.”³

Coronavirus can indeed cause significant damage to the testicular tissue of infected men by means of mediating ACE2 expression on Leydig and Sertoli cells of the testis. It should be noted that COVID-19 may potentially attack any type of cell in the body that expresses the enzyme ACE2. However, it is particularly harmful to cells with high levels of expression of this enzyme, such as testicular cells. The spermatogenesis process can be affected, thereby posing a risk to male fertility.⁴

Expanding on the theme of fertility during the pandemic, a number of false claims^5-7 about the vaccine and its overall effect on the placenta and fertility have also emerged as a contentious topic for debate on social media; doctors continue to explain why the theories are not reasonable or a cause for concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides recommendations on COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant and/or lactating women and encourages a shared decision process involving risk/benefit assessment with the prescribing physician.⁵ Pregnant women, especially those with underlying comorbid conditions, are susceptible to developing severe symptom manifestations of COVID-19 with the disease also being associated with an increased likelihood of premature birth. As far as lactating women are concerned, the evidence thus far has indicated that the risk of side effects of the vaccine is very low, suggesting that these women could be vaccinated.⁵

The vaccine is the best option

While more studies are needed to ascertain the relationship between COVID-19 and male infertility, the vaccine is currently the best option for those who are concerned about their fertility from exposure to the coronavirus. Because of delayed wholesale acceptance of vaccines by the general population, clinicians should continue to emphasize the importance of preventive care with respect to disease exposure.⁶

In addition, those who are concerned with fertility can opt for ways to preserve their reproductive capacity, such as the removal of semen for freezing sperm, albeit with adherence to sperm-washing procedures to preclude cross-contamination from viruses.^8,9 For the preservation of sperm, the noninvasive method is often performed, preferably collected in several samples. Then, the semen is cryopreserved.⁸ In some instances, the sperm can also be removed directly from the testicles with a simple needle or by means of a minor surgical procedure.

A wait and try approach is advocated by clinicians for individuals who have already experienced COVID-19 symptoms and are therefore concerned about the prospect of childbearing.¹⁰ If the couple is unable to conceive after a year of trying, it is recommended that they consult a reproductive specialist; the clinician can carry out a comprehensive evaluation and order a series of tests to identify the source of the problem, indicating whether there are alternative methods for helping the couple to start a family (addressing the underlying factors involved in infertility, or treating via assisted reproduction procedures, such as in vitro fertilization).¹¹

Dr. Aman is faculty member at the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago, and a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF). She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical writer for the IMCHF, Montreal, is based in New York, and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF and he has no disclosures. Dr. Zia Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. Berry SD et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 May;69(5):1140-6.

2. Achua JK et al. World J Men’s Health. 2021 Jan;39(1):65-74.

3. Broderick JM. Urology Times. 2021 June.

4. Huang C et al. Andrology. 2021 Jan;9(1):80-7.

5. Sajjadi NB et al. J Osteopath Med. 2021 Apr 12;121(6):583-7.

6. Sallam M et al. Vaccines. 2021 Jan;9(1):42.

7. Islam MS et al. PloS One. 2021 May 12;16(5):e0251605.

8. Tesarik J. J Fertil Preserv. 2021;2:art246111.

9. Adiga SK et al. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020 Dec;41(6):991-7.

10. FAQs related to COVID-19. Q: If I get sick or test positive for COVID-19, when is it safe to become pregnant? American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

11. Cross C. Wellness and Prevention: Why can’t I get pregnant? John Hopkins Medicine.

Introduction

Amidst an aggressive vaccination campaign for COVID-19, misinformation has spread over the Internet, affecting public perception and making some people hesitant to participate in ongoing immunization campaigns. Of chief concern are issues pertaining to fertility or viability of sperm – information circulating on social networks posits that the coronavirus vaccine may influence infertility in men, which, according to physicians, is not grounded in reality. From the perspective of evidence-based medicine, there is a dearth of information suggesting an untoward effect of the vaccine on male fertility. The risk of adverse reactions arising from approved vaccines is negligible, with mild, albeit controllable, side effects demonstrated by patients in clinical trials. Therefore, there is no plausible reason for the general public to avoid vaccinations.¹

Infertility following vaccination

The source of confusion can be traced back to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; the general public has conflated a side effect of the virus, namely, infertility and erectile dysfunction, with that of the vaccine.² According to Ranjith Ramasamy, MD, director of the urology program at Miller, “We were the first to demonstrate that the COVID virus, itself, can affect male fertility and be a potential cause for erectile dysfunction. We are now the first to examine if there is any impact of the COVID vaccine on male fertility potential, which we did not find.”³

Coronavirus can indeed cause significant damage to the testicular tissue of infected men by means of mediating ACE2 expression on Leydig and Sertoli cells of the testis. It should be noted that COVID-19 may potentially attack any type of cell in the body that expresses the enzyme ACE2. However, it is particularly harmful to cells with high levels of expression of this enzyme, such as testicular cells. The spermatogenesis process can be affected, thereby posing a risk to male fertility.⁴

Expanding on the theme of fertility during the pandemic, a number of false claims^5-7 about the vaccine and its overall effect on the placenta and fertility have also emerged as a contentious topic for debate on social media; doctors continue to explain why the theories are not reasonable or a cause for concern. The World Health Organization (WHO) provides recommendations on COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant and/or lactating women and encourages a shared decision process involving risk/benefit assessment with the prescribing physician.⁵ Pregnant women, especially those with underlying comorbid conditions, are susceptible to developing severe symptom manifestations of COVID-19 with the disease also being associated with an increased likelihood of premature birth. As far as lactating women are concerned, the evidence thus far has indicated that the risk of side effects of the vaccine is very low, suggesting that these women could be vaccinated.⁵

The vaccine is the best option

While more studies are needed to ascertain the relationship between COVID-19 and male infertility, the vaccine is currently the best option for those who are concerned about their fertility from exposure to the coronavirus. Because of delayed wholesale acceptance of vaccines by the general population, clinicians should continue to emphasize the importance of preventive care with respect to disease exposure.⁶

In addition, those who are concerned with fertility can opt for ways to preserve their reproductive capacity, such as the removal of semen for freezing sperm, albeit with adherence to sperm-washing procedures to preclude cross-contamination from viruses.^8,9 For the preservation of sperm, the noninvasive method is often performed, preferably collected in several samples. Then, the semen is cryopreserved.⁸ In some instances, the sperm can also be removed directly from the testicles with a simple needle or by means of a minor surgical procedure.

A wait and try approach is advocated by clinicians for individuals who have already experienced COVID-19 symptoms and are therefore concerned about the prospect of childbearing.¹⁰ If the couple is unable to conceive after a year of trying, it is recommended that they consult a reproductive specialist; the clinician can carry out a comprehensive evaluation and order a series of tests to identify the source of the problem, indicating whether there are alternative methods for helping the couple to start a family (addressing the underlying factors involved in infertility, or treating via assisted reproduction procedures, such as in vitro fertilization).¹¹

Dr. Aman is faculty member at the biology department of City Colleges of Chicago, and a postdoctoral researcher at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation (IMCHF). She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Islam is a medical writer for the IMCHF, Montreal, is based in New York, and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Choudhry is a research assistant at the IMCHF and he has no disclosures. Dr. Zia Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the IMCHF. He has no disclosures.

References

1. Berry SD et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 May;69(5):1140-6.

2. Achua JK et al. World J Men’s Health. 2021 Jan;39(1):65-74.

3. Broderick JM. Urology Times. 2021 June.

4. Huang C et al. Andrology. 2021 Jan;9(1):80-7.

5. Sajjadi NB et al. J Osteopath Med. 2021 Apr 12;121(6):583-7.

6. Sallam M et al. Vaccines. 2021 Jan;9(1):42.

7. Islam MS et al. PloS One. 2021 May 12;16(5):e0251605.

8. Tesarik J. J Fertil Preserv. 2021;2:art246111.

9. Adiga SK et al. Reprod BioMed Online. 2020 Dec;41(6):991-7.

10. FAQs related to COVID-19. Q: If I get sick or test positive for COVID-19, when is it safe to become pregnant? American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

11. Cross C. Wellness and Prevention: Why can’t I get pregnant? John Hopkins Medicine.

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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

Given the expansive contemporary role of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, the language in the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft guidance on their use in that setting may seem conservative. Even so, the proposed recommendations, open to public comment until March 21, take more recent data into account but don’t substantially vary from the 2016 USPSTF document they are intended to replace.

The task force concluded “with moderate certainty” that a statin prescription will clinically benefit adults aged 40-75 years without CVD but with at least one of several risk factors, such as dyslipidemia or diabetes, who have a 10-year CVD risk of at least 7.5%.

AndrewSoundarajan/Thinkstock

The net benefit of statin therapy is “at least small” for individuals in whom the 10-year CVD risk is 7.5% up to 10.0%, the new report states. That, says an accompanying USPSTF press release, means such people “may benefit from statin use and should decide with their clinician if taking a statin is right for them.”

Also, notes the report, the net benefit of statin therapy is “at least moderate” for individuals with a 10% or greater CVD risk over the next decade who, the press release states, “should take a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke.”

The evidence review on which the task force based the guidance, the report says, lacked sufficient basis for determining statin benefit versus risk in adults older than 75 years without a history of CVD. “In the absence of this evidence, clinicians should use their judgment as to whether to offer a statin to a patient in this age group,” according to the press release.

The review focused on 22 clinical trials for data on the statin benefits and saw significantly decreased associated risks for death from any cause, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction with treatment. The combined trial populations exceeded 85,000 for assessing all-cause mortality and 76,000 for each of the other two endpoints.

To assess any potential statin therapy harms, the evidence review covered 19 clinical trials with a combined enrollment of about 75,000 – two more trials than considered in the 2016 document – plus three observational studies with more than 400,000 participants. Statins were found not to be associated with an increased risk for study withdrawal because of adverse events, nor were there signs of greater risk for myalgia or new-onset diabetes, compared with placebo.

“A majority of the trials reviewed by the USPSTF used moderate-intensity statin therapy,” the report states. “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CVD in most persons.”

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

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

 Patients who have had a myocardial infarction experience faster cognitive decline over time than immediately after the event, new research suggests.

Although cognition in the acute phase after MI was not different than those without an MI in large observational cohorts, cognitive decline became significantly different over a median 6.5 years of follow-up.

The results reinforce the idea that heart health is closely tied to brain health, lead study author Michelle C. Johansen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology cerebrovascular division, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “From a clinical standpoint, heart health affects brain health and there may be effective interventions to prevent heart attack from happening that could reduce the rate of cognitive decline.”

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the vascular contribution to cognitive impairment, said Dr. Johansen. This could involve “silent” or subclinical strokes that go unrecognized until seen on imaging.

The study included 31,377 adults free of MI and dementia from six large, well-known cohort studies: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, the Cardiovascular Health Study, the Framingham Offspring Study, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Northern Manhattan Study

About 56% of study participants were women, 23% were Black, 8% were Hispanic, and 69% were White.

They were followed from 1971 to 2017 with investigators repeatedly measuring vascular risk factors. The median study follow-up was 6.5 years, but some were followed for up to 20 years. During that time, there were 1,047 incident MIs.

The researchers performed a pooled analysis from these studies “using some fancy statistical techniques,” said Dr. Johansen. “The unique thing about this study was we were able to harmonize the cognitive measures.”

This allowed the researchers to determine if incident MI affected cognitive decline soon after the event and then long-term after the event. The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Additional outcomes were memory and executive function.

The median time between the first MI and the cognitive assessment was about 1.8 years but ranged from about 6 months to 4 years, said Dr. Johansen. Participants were a median age of 60 years at the time of the first cognitive assessment.

The researchers adjusted results for demographic factors, heart disease risk factors, and cognitive test results prior to the MI. Participants who had a stroke during the follow-up period were excluded from the analysis as stroke can affect cognition.

The study showed incident MI was associated with significant decline in global cognition (–0.71; 95% confidence interval, –1.02 to 0.42; P < .0001) and executive function (–0.68; 95% CI, –0.97 to 0.39; P < .004), but not memory, after the MI.

As cognition naturally declines with age, the researchers took that into consideration. “We anticipated cognition over time was going to go down, which it did, but the question we asked was: ‘How did the slope, which we knew was going to decline over time, compare in people who did not have a MI versus those that did?’ ” said Dr. Johansen.

After adjusting the model accordingly, the effect estimates indicating declines in global cognition and executive function were not significant.

However, another model that looked at the effect of incident MI on decline in cognitive function over the years following the event found significant differences.

Compared with participants without MI, those with incident MI had significantly faster declines in global cognition (–0.15 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.21 to –0.10; P < .002), memory (–0.13 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.04; P = .004), and executive function (–0.14 points/year faster, 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.08; P < .0001).

Dr. Johansen surmised that MI may result in subclinical infarcts or inflammation, or that MI and cognitive decline have shared vascular risk factors.

She said she can only speculate about why there was not more of a cognitive decline surrounding the MI. “It may be that right after the event, subjects are kind of sick from other things so it’s hard to see exactly what’s going on. Sometimes people can have other problems just from being in the hospital and having a heart attack may make cognition difficult to assess.”

The researchers also looked at those who had a second MI. “We asked whether the decline we saw after the first heart attack among those who had two heart attacks was explained by the fact they had more than one heart attack, and the answer to that question is no,” Dr. Johansen said.

The next research steps for Dr. Johansen and associates are to look at differences in race and sex.

Karen L. Furie, MD, chair, department of neurology, Brown University, and chief of neurology at Rhode Island Hospital, the Miriam Hospital, and the Bradley Hospital, all in Providence, provided a comment on the research.

MI and cognitive decline have a number of common risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, physical inactivity, and poor diet that can lead to obesity, said Dr. Furie.

“It’s critically important to identify these risk factors as early as possible,” she said. “People in early and middle life may not be receiving optimal medical management or engaging in ideal lifestyle choices and these contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerotic disease over the subsequent decades.”

In theory, she said, if these risk factors were eliminated or adequately treated earlier in life, “both the heart and brain could age naturally and in a healthy manner, enabling a higher functioning and better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johansen receives research funding from NINDS.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Updated guidance for health care providers on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) recognizes the evolving nature of the disease and offers strategies for pediatric rheumatologists, who also may be asked to recommend treatment for hyperinflammation in children with acute COVID-19.

Guidance is needed for many reasons, including the variable case definitions for MIS-C, the presence of MIS-C features in other infections and childhood rheumatic diseases, the extrapolation of treatment strategies from other conditions with similar presentations, and the issue of myocardial dysfunction, wrote Lauren A. Henderson, MD, MMSC, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and members of the American College of Rheumatology MIS-C and COVID-19–Related Hyperinflammation Task Force.

However, “modifications to treatment plans, particularly in patients with complex conditions, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific, and therefore must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process,” the authors said. The updated guidance was published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Update needed in wake of Omicron

“We continue to see cases of MIS-C across the United States due to the spike in SARS-CoV-2 infections from the Omicron variant,” and therefore updated guidance is important at this time, Dr. Henderson told this news organization.

“MIS-C remains a serious complication of COVID-19 in children and the ACR wanted to continue to provide pediatricians with up-to-date recommendations for the management of MIS-C,” she said.

“Children began to present with MIS-C in April 2020. At that time, little was known about this entity. Most of the recommendations in the first version of the MIS-C guidance were based on expert opinion,” she explained. However, “over the last 2 years, pediatricians have worked very hard to conduct high-quality research studies to better understand MIS-C, so we now have more scientific evidence to guide our recommendations.

“In version three of the MIS-C guidance, there are new recommendations on treatment. Previously, it was unclear what medications should be used for first-line treatment in patients with MIS-C. Some children were given intravenous immunoglobulin while others were given IVIg and steroids together. Several new studies show that children with MIS-C who are treated with a combination of IVIg and steroids have better outcomes. Accordingly, the MIS-C guidance now recommends dual therapy with IVIg and steroids in children with MIS-C.”

Diagnostic evaluation

The guidance calls for maintaining a broad differential diagnosis of MIS-C, given that the condition remains rare, and that most children with COVID-19 present with mild symptoms and have excellent outcomes, the authors noted. The range of clinical features associated with MIS-C include fever, mucocutaneous findings, myocardial dysfunction, cardiac conduction abnormalities, shock, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lymphadenopathy.

Some patients also experience neurologic involvement in the form of severe headache, altered mental status, seizures, cranial nerve palsies, meningismus, cerebral edema, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Given the nonspecific nature of these symptoms, “it is imperative that a diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C include investigation for other possible causes, as deemed appropriate by the treating provider,” the authors emphasized. Other diagnostic considerations include the prevalence and chronology of COVID-19 in the community, which may change over time.
 

MIS-C and Kawasaki disease phenotypes

Earlier in the pandemic, when MIS-C first emerged, it was compared with Kawasaki disease (KD). “However, a closer examination of the literature shows that only about one-quarter to half of patients with a reported diagnosis of MIS-C meet the full diagnostic criteria for KD,” the authors wrote. Key features that separate MIS-C from KD include the greater incidence of KD among children in Japan and East Asia versus the higher incidence of MIS-C among non-Hispanic Black children. In addition, children with MIS-C have shown a wider age range, more prominent gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, and more frequent cardiac dysfunction, compared with those with KD.

Cardiac management

Close follow-up with cardiology is essential for children with MIS-C, according to the authors. The recommendations call for repeat echocardiograms for all children with MIS-C at a minimum of 7-14 days, then again at 4-6 weeks after the initial presentation. The authors also recommended additional echocardiograms for children with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiac aortic aneurysms. 

MIS-C treatment

Current treatment recommendations emphasize that patients under investigation for MIS-C with life-threatening manifestations may need immunomodulatory therapy before a full diagnostic evaluation is complete, the authors said. However, patients without life-threatening manifestations should be evaluated before starting immunomodulatory treatment to avoid potentially harmful therapies for pediatric patients who don’t need them.

When MIS-C is refractory to initial immunomodulatory treatment, a second dose of IVIg is not recommended, but intensification therapy is advised with either high-dose (10-30 mg/kg per day) glucocorticoids, anakinra, or infliximab. However, there is little evidence available for selecting a specific agent for intensification therapy.

The task force also advises giving low-dose aspirin (3-5 mg/kg per day, up to 81 mg once daily) to all MIS-C patients without active bleeding or significant bleeding risk until normalization of the platelet count and confirmed normal coronary arteries at least 4 weeks after diagnosis.
 

COVID-19 and hyperinflammation

The task force also noted a distinction between MIS-C and severe COVID-19 in children. Although many children with MIS-C are previously healthy, most children who develop severe COVID-19 during an initial infection have complex conditions or comorbidities such as developmental delay or genetic anomaly, or chronic conditions such as congenital heart disease, type 1 diabetes, or asthma, the authors said. They recommend that “hospitalized children with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or respiratory support should be considered for immunomodulatory therapy in addition to supportive care and antiviral medications.”

The authors acknowledged the limitations and evolving nature of the recommendations, which will continue to change and do not replace clinical judgment for the management of individual patients. In the meantime, the ACR will support the task force in reviewing new evidence and providing revised versions of the current document.

Many questions about MIS-C remain, Dr. Henderson said in an interview. “It can be very hard to diagnose children with MIS-C because many of the symptoms are similar to those seen in other febrile illness of childhood. We need to identify better biomarkers to help us make the diagnosis of MIS-C. In addition, we need studies to provide information about what treatments should be used if children fail to respond to IVIg and steroids. Finally, it appears that vaccination [against SARS-CoV-2] protects against severe forms of MIS-C, and studies are needed to see how vaccination protects children from MIS-C.”

The development of the guidance was supported by the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Henderson disclosed relationships with companies including Sobi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies (less than $10,000) and research support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

The Omicron subvariant, BA.2, is not only more transmissible than the original Omicron strain, BA.1, but may cause more severe disease, a lab study from Japan says.

“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.

The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.

“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.

BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.

What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2. 

BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote. 

“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”

If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.

But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.

“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”

“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.

Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants. 

“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”

Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.

It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.

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

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

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

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

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

Two features are significantly associated with a higher risk for developing long COVID symptoms among people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a large Danish population study.

People with Crohn’s disease (CD) who experienced adverse acute COVID-19, defined as requiring hospitalization, were nearly three times more likely to report persistent symptoms 12 weeks after acute infection.

“Long-term, persisting symptoms following COVID-19 is a frequently occurring problem, which is probably underappreciated. IBD specialists should therefore be aware of any of these symptoms and actively ask patients whether they have these problems,” lead author Mohamed Attauabi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues also found that people with ulcerative colitis (UC) who discontinued immunosuppressive agents because of COVID-19 were 1.5 times more likely to experience long COVID symptoms, a result that surprised the researchers.

“This has not been shown before and remains to be confirmed,” said Dr. Attauabi, a fellow in the department of gastroenterology at Herlev Hospital at the University of Copenhagen.

Attauabi presented the results as a digital oral presentation at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
 

A closer look at IBD and COVID-19

Large, hospital-based studies of symptoms consistent with long COVID reveal a high prevalence of fatigue, sleep difficulties, and anxiety at 12 weeks or more post acute infection. However, these were not specific to people with CD or UC, Dr. Attauabi said.

“In patients with IBD, the risk of long-term sequelae of COVID-19 remains to be investigated,” he said.

Dr. Attauabi and colleagues studied 197 people with CD and 319 with UC, all of whom had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19. Participants were prospectively enrolled in the population-based Danish IBD-COVID registry from January 28, 2020 to April 1, 2021. At a median of 5.1 months, a subset of 85 people with CD and 137 with UC agreed to report any post-COVID symptoms.

Older age, smoking, IBD disease activity, and presence of comorbidities were not associated with a significantly elevated risk of long COVID.

In a multivariate analysis, hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with CD was significantly associated with long COVID (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.90; P = .04).

Furthermore, people with UC who stopped taking immunosuppressive agents also had a significantly higher risk (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.07-10.22; P = .01).

“However, IBD medications such as systemic steroids were not associated with this outcome,” Dr. Attauabi said.
 

Fatigue most common long COVID symptom

Fatigue was the most common long COVID symptom, reported by 37% of patients with CD and 36% with UC.

Anosmia and ageusia were also common, reported by 29% and 28% of patients with CD, and 27% and 19% of those with UC, respectively.

“In our cohort of patients with UC or CD who developed COVID-19, the long-term health effects of COVID-19 did not appear to differ among patients with UC or CD nor according to IBD medications,” Dr. Attauabi said.

That is a “great study,” said session cochair Torsten Kucharzik, MD, PhD, head of internal medicine and gastroenterology at Lueneburg (Germany) Hospital.

When Dr. Kucharzik asked about smoking, Dr. Attauabi responded that they collected information on current and previous smoking, but they chose not to include the data because it was not statistically significant.

Dr. Attauabi has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kucharzik has reported receiving grants from Takeda and personal fees from companies including MSD/Essex, AbbVie, Falk Foundation, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Arena, Celgene, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos, Olympus, Mundipharma, Takeda, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma.

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

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Spironolactone was not associated with any meaningful increase in the risk of breast cancer or other solid organ cancers in a systematic review and meta-analysis covering seven observational studies and a total population of over 4.5 million people.

The data, published in JAMA Dermatology, are “reassuring,” the authors reported, considering that the spironolactone label carries a Food and Drug Administration warning regarding possible tumorigenicity, which is based on animal studies of doses up to 150-fold greater than doses used for humans. The drug’s antiandrogenic properties have driven its off-label use as a treatment for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.

Spironolactone, a synthetic 17-lactone steroid, is approved for the treatment of heart failure, edema and ascites, hypertension, and primary hyperaldosteronism. Off label, it is also frequently used in gender-affirming care and is included in Endocrine Society guidelines as part of hormonal regimens for transgender women, the authors noted.

The seven eligible studies looked at the occurrence of cancer in men and women who had any exposure to the drug, regardless of the primary indication. Sample sizes ranged from 18,035 to 2.3 million, and the mean age across all studies was 62.6-72 years.

The researchers synthesized the studies, mostly of European individuals, using random effects meta-analysis and found no statistically significant association between spironolactone use and risk of breast cancer (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.22). Three of the seven studies investigated breast cancer.

There was also no significant association between spironolactone use and risk of ovarian cancer (two studies), bladder cancer (three studies), kidney cancer (two studies), gastric cancer (two studies), or esophageal cancer (two studies).

For prostate cancer, investigated in four studies, use of the drug was associated with decreased risk (RR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).

Kanthi Bommareddy, MD, of the University of Miami and coauthors concluded that all studies were at low risk of bias after appraising each one using a scale that looks at selection bias, confounding bias, and detection and outcome bias.

In dermatology, the results should “help us to take a collective sigh of relief,” said Julie C. Harper, MD, of the Dermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Ala., who was asked to comment on the study. The drug has been “safe and effective in our clinics and it is affordable and accessible to our patients,” she said, but with the FDA’s warning and the drug’s antiandrogen capacity, “there has been concern that we might be putting our patients at increased risk of breast cancer [in particular].”

The pooling of seven large studies together and the finding of no substantive increased risk of cancer “gives us evidence and comfort that spironolactone does not increase the risk of cancer in our dermatology patients,” said Dr. Harper, a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society.

“With every passing year,” she noted, “dermatologists are prescribing more and more spironolactone for acne, hidradenitis, androgenetic alopecia, and hirsutism.”

Four of the seven studies stratified analyses by sex, and in those without stratification by sex, women accounted for 17.2%-54.4% of the samples.

The studies had long follow-up periods of 5-20 years, but certainty of the evidence was low and since many of the studies included mostly older individuals, “they may not generalize to younger populations, such as those treated with spironolactone for acne,” the investigators wrote.

The authors also noted they were unable to look for dose-dependent associations between spironolactone and cancer risk, and that confidence intervals for rarer cancers like ovarian cancer were wide. “We cannot entirely exclude the potential for a meaningful increase in cancer risk,” and future studies are needed, in populations that include younger patients and those with acne or hirsutism.

Dr. Bommareddy reported no disclosures. Other coauthors reported grants from the National Cancer Institute outside the submitted work, and personal fees as a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar in Cancer Research. There was no funding reported for the study. Dr. Harper said she had no disclosures.

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.

Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.

Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
 

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.

In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.

Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).

The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
 

No difference by vaccine status

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”

Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).

Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.

The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.

Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.

In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.

Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.

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

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.

In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.

But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”

Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.

Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.

“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.

Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.

“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”

Chronic urticaria develops in 20%-45% of patients who present with acute urticaria. One form of chronic urticaria is inducible urticaria, which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”

The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.

About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.

According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”

That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”

According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.

Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”

In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.

As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.

Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”

Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.

A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”

A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.

Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.

“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.