Clinician Reviews

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

A new study may help doctors assess the long-term risk for major bleeding if anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolisms (VTE) is continued beyond 3-6 months.

The meta-analysis of data from 27 studies with 17,202 patients was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. According to two of the paper’s coauthors, Faizan Khan, MSc, and Marc A. Rodger, MD, it “provides best available estimates of long-term bleeding risk with different anticoagulants in patients with unprovoked VTE,” including subgroups at increased risk.

Patients at increased risk for major bleeding include those who are older; those using antiplatelet therapy; and patients with kidney disease, a history of bleeding, or anemia, noted the coauthors, who work for the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

The researchers focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies that reported major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked or weakly provoked VTE who received oral anticoagulation for at least 6 months beyond an initial anticoagulant treatment course of at least 3 months.

The investigators analyzed data from 14 RCTs and 13 cohort studies. In all, 9,982 patients received a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and 7,220 received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

The incidence of major bleeding per 100 person-years was 1.7 events with VKAs, compared with 1.1 events with DOACs. The researchers estimated that the 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding with VKAs was 6.3%. The available data for DOACs were insufficient to estimate the incidence of major bleeding beyond 1 year.

“This information can help clinicians counsel patients and inform shared decision-making about extended therapy,” the researchers said.

Risks of serious bleeding ‘not trivial’

Margaret Fang, MD, with the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the study can help clinicians and patients weigh the risks of extended anticoagulation for common types of VTE.

The study also “highlights that the risks of serious bleeding are not trivial” and points out gaps in the literature regarding the long-term use of DOACs for extended VTE therapy, Dr. Fang said.

Better ways to predict which patients will develop bleeding on anticoagulants are needed, Dr. Fang added. “It will also be important to establish which of the various therapies for preventing recurrent VTE – full dose versus lowered dose, or even aspirin – has the best balance of safety and efficacy,” she said.

‘Standardized approach’ for identifying high-risk patients lacking

Clinical practice guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE, except when patients are at high risk of bleeding, the authors noted. But clinicians lack a “standardized approach to identify patients at high risk of bleeding,” Mr. Khan and Dr. Rodger said. “Evidence from randomized trials on net long-term benefit of extended therapy is limited, and current guideline recommendations are largely based on expert consensus opinion. Major bleeding events are two to three times more likely to be fatal than recurrent VTE events, so extended therapy is not always associated with a net mortality benefit, particularly in patients at low risk of recurrent VTE or high risk of bleeding.”

The analysis indicates that there is “a clinically meaningful difference in long-term risk for anticoagulant-related major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked VTE stratified according to presence or absence of the following risk factors: age older than 65 years, creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min, history of bleeding, concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy, and hemoglobin level less than 100 g/L,” the authors said.

For example, the researchers found that the incidence of major bleeding was higher among those older than 65 years, compared with younger patients (incidence rate ratio, 1.84 with VKAs and 2.92 with DOACs), and among those with creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min (IRR, 2.83 with VKAs and 3.71 with DOACs).

The case-fatality rate of major bleeding was 8.3% with VKAs and 9.7% with DOACs.

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Some of the coauthors are employees of or have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Khan, Dr. Rodger, and Dr. Fang had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new study may help doctors assess the long-term risk for major bleeding if anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolisms (VTE) is continued beyond 3-6 months.

The meta-analysis of data from 27 studies with 17,202 patients was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. According to two of the paper’s coauthors, Faizan Khan, MSc, and Marc A. Rodger, MD, it “provides best available estimates of long-term bleeding risk with different anticoagulants in patients with unprovoked VTE,” including subgroups at increased risk.

Patients at increased risk for major bleeding include those who are older; those using antiplatelet therapy; and patients with kidney disease, a history of bleeding, or anemia, noted the coauthors, who work for the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

The researchers focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies that reported major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked or weakly provoked VTE who received oral anticoagulation for at least 6 months beyond an initial anticoagulant treatment course of at least 3 months.

The investigators analyzed data from 14 RCTs and 13 cohort studies. In all, 9,982 patients received a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and 7,220 received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

The incidence of major bleeding per 100 person-years was 1.7 events with VKAs, compared with 1.1 events with DOACs. The researchers estimated that the 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding with VKAs was 6.3%. The available data for DOACs were insufficient to estimate the incidence of major bleeding beyond 1 year.

“This information can help clinicians counsel patients and inform shared decision-making about extended therapy,” the researchers said.

Risks of serious bleeding ‘not trivial’

Margaret Fang, MD, with the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the study can help clinicians and patients weigh the risks of extended anticoagulation for common types of VTE.

The study also “highlights that the risks of serious bleeding are not trivial” and points out gaps in the literature regarding the long-term use of DOACs for extended VTE therapy, Dr. Fang said.

Better ways to predict which patients will develop bleeding on anticoagulants are needed, Dr. Fang added. “It will also be important to establish which of the various therapies for preventing recurrent VTE – full dose versus lowered dose, or even aspirin – has the best balance of safety and efficacy,” she said.

‘Standardized approach’ for identifying high-risk patients lacking

Clinical practice guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE, except when patients are at high risk of bleeding, the authors noted. But clinicians lack a “standardized approach to identify patients at high risk of bleeding,” Mr. Khan and Dr. Rodger said. “Evidence from randomized trials on net long-term benefit of extended therapy is limited, and current guideline recommendations are largely based on expert consensus opinion. Major bleeding events are two to three times more likely to be fatal than recurrent VTE events, so extended therapy is not always associated with a net mortality benefit, particularly in patients at low risk of recurrent VTE or high risk of bleeding.”

The analysis indicates that there is “a clinically meaningful difference in long-term risk for anticoagulant-related major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked VTE stratified according to presence or absence of the following risk factors: age older than 65 years, creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min, history of bleeding, concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy, and hemoglobin level less than 100 g/L,” the authors said.

For example, the researchers found that the incidence of major bleeding was higher among those older than 65 years, compared with younger patients (incidence rate ratio, 1.84 with VKAs and 2.92 with DOACs), and among those with creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min (IRR, 2.83 with VKAs and 3.71 with DOACs).

The case-fatality rate of major bleeding was 8.3% with VKAs and 9.7% with DOACs.

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Some of the coauthors are employees of or have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Khan, Dr. Rodger, and Dr. Fang had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new study may help doctors assess the long-term risk for major bleeding if anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolisms (VTE) is continued beyond 3-6 months.

The meta-analysis of data from 27 studies with 17,202 patients was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. According to two of the paper’s coauthors, Faizan Khan, MSc, and Marc A. Rodger, MD, it “provides best available estimates of long-term bleeding risk with different anticoagulants in patients with unprovoked VTE,” including subgroups at increased risk.

Patients at increased risk for major bleeding include those who are older; those using antiplatelet therapy; and patients with kidney disease, a history of bleeding, or anemia, noted the coauthors, who work for the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

The researchers focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies that reported major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked or weakly provoked VTE who received oral anticoagulation for at least 6 months beyond an initial anticoagulant treatment course of at least 3 months.

The investigators analyzed data from 14 RCTs and 13 cohort studies. In all, 9,982 patients received a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and 7,220 received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

The incidence of major bleeding per 100 person-years was 1.7 events with VKAs, compared with 1.1 events with DOACs. The researchers estimated that the 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding with VKAs was 6.3%. The available data for DOACs were insufficient to estimate the incidence of major bleeding beyond 1 year.

“This information can help clinicians counsel patients and inform shared decision-making about extended therapy,” the researchers said.

Risks of serious bleeding ‘not trivial’

Margaret Fang, MD, with the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the study can help clinicians and patients weigh the risks of extended anticoagulation for common types of VTE.

The study also “highlights that the risks of serious bleeding are not trivial” and points out gaps in the literature regarding the long-term use of DOACs for extended VTE therapy, Dr. Fang said.

Better ways to predict which patients will develop bleeding on anticoagulants are needed, Dr. Fang added. “It will also be important to establish which of the various therapies for preventing recurrent VTE – full dose versus lowered dose, or even aspirin – has the best balance of safety and efficacy,” she said.

‘Standardized approach’ for identifying high-risk patients lacking

Clinical practice guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE, except when patients are at high risk of bleeding, the authors noted. But clinicians lack a “standardized approach to identify patients at high risk of bleeding,” Mr. Khan and Dr. Rodger said. “Evidence from randomized trials on net long-term benefit of extended therapy is limited, and current guideline recommendations are largely based on expert consensus opinion. Major bleeding events are two to three times more likely to be fatal than recurrent VTE events, so extended therapy is not always associated with a net mortality benefit, particularly in patients at low risk of recurrent VTE or high risk of bleeding.”

The analysis indicates that there is “a clinically meaningful difference in long-term risk for anticoagulant-related major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked VTE stratified according to presence or absence of the following risk factors: age older than 65 years, creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min, history of bleeding, concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy, and hemoglobin level less than 100 g/L,” the authors said.

For example, the researchers found that the incidence of major bleeding was higher among those older than 65 years, compared with younger patients (incidence rate ratio, 1.84 with VKAs and 2.92 with DOACs), and among those with creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min (IRR, 2.83 with VKAs and 3.71 with DOACs).

The case-fatality rate of major bleeding was 8.3% with VKAs and 9.7% with DOACs.

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Some of the coauthors are employees of or have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Khan, Dr. Rodger, and Dr. Fang had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ON101 (Fespixon, Oneness Biotech), a first-in-class, macrophage-regulating, wound-healing cream for diabetic foot ulcers has shown benefit over absorbent dressings in a phase 3 trial, with another trial ongoing.

The product became available in Taiwan on July 4, 2021, after receiving regulatory approval from the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration based on efficacy and safety findings in a three-country phase 3 clinical trial.  

Oneness Biotech has also just started a second phase 3 trial in the United States, with a planned enrollment of 208 patients with diabetic foot ulcers, which will compare ON101 cream versus placebo cream, in addition to standard care, over 20 weeks.

The company expects to complete that trial and file a new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023, and a global launch is planned for 2025, said Oneness Biotech founder and CEO William Lu.
 

Current and upcoming trials

The Taiwan FDA approval of ON101 was based on a 236-patient clinical trial conducted in Taiwan, China, and the United States by Yu-Yao Huang MD, PhD, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and colleagues, which was published online Sept. 3, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The study results will also be presented during an oral session at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting on Sept. 30.

The published trial showed that foot ulcers treated with ON101 cream were almost three times more likely to be completely healed at 16 weeks than those treated with standard care with an absorbent dressing (Aquacel Hydrofiber, ConvaTec) (odds ratio, 2.84; P < .001).

“The findings of this study suggest that ON101, a macrophage regulator that behaves differently from moisture-retaining dressings, represents an active-healing alternative for home and primary care of patients with chronic [diabetic foot ulcers],” the researchers concluded.

“ON101 was also granted a fast track designation by the U.S. FDA in March this year,” senior author Shun-Chen Chang, MD, Taipei Medical University–Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

“Patients in the United States can access this new drug via the expanded access program or by participating in the second phase 3 trial in the United States,” added coauthor Shawn M. Cazzell, DPM, chief medical officer, Limb Preservation Platform, Fresno, Calif., who is involved with both trials.

It is “exciting” to have a new therapy for diabetic foot ulcers, said Dr. Cazzell, because they are serious and life-threatening.
 

Could cream with plant extracts surpass current care?

Current standard clinical care for diabetic foot ulcer consists of debridement, off-loading, infection control, and maintaining a moist environment with dressings, Huang and colleagues explain. If the foot ulcer does not respond, growth factors, tissue-engineering products, hyperbaric oxygen, or negative pressure wound therapies may be used.

However, the number of amputations from chronic diabetic foot ulcers that do not heal is increasing, pointing to a need for better treatment options.  

Hyperglycemia increases the ratio of M1 proinflammatory macrophages to M2 proregenerative macrophages, and accumulating evidence suggests this might be a potential treatment target.  

Researchers at Oneness Biotech showed that ON101, which is comprised of extracts from two plants, Plectranthus amboinicus and Centella asiatica, exerts a wound-healing effect by regulating the balance between M1 and M2 macrophages.

An extract of one plant suppresses inflammation, while an extract of the other increases collagen synthesis.

In preclinical studies, these two plant extracts had a synergistic effect on balancing the ratio of M1 to M2 macrophages and accelerating wound healing in a mouse model. This was followed by promising efficacy and safety results in two trials of 24 patients and 30 patients.
 

Significantly better healing with ON101 than standard care

For the current phase 3, randomized clinical trial, researchers enrolled patients in 21 clinics from November 2012 to May 2020.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to be 20-80 years old, with a hemoglobin A1c less than 12%. They also had to have a Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcer that was 1-25 cm² after debridement, had been treated with standard care, and was present for at least 4 weeks.

Patients were a mean age of 57 years and 74% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, and 61% had had diabetes for more than 10 years.

Most (78%) of the diabetic foot ulcers were Wagner grade 2. The wounds had a mean area of 4.8 cm² and had been present for a mean of 7 months.

Patients were instructed on how to self-administer ON101 cream twice a day (treatment group, n = 122) or how to apply an absorbent dressing and change it daily or two or three times a week (standard care group, n = 114). All patients were allowed to apply a sterile gauze dressing.  

They visited the clinic every 2 weeks during the 16-week treatment phase and 12-week observation phase.

In the full analysis set, 74 patients (61%) in the ON101 group and 40 patients (35%) in the standard care group had complete wound healing after 16 weeks of treatment.

The subgroup of patients at higher risk of poor wound healing (A1c >9%, ulcer area >5 cm², and diabetic foot ulcer duration >6 months) also had significantly better healing with the ON101 cream than standard care.

There were seven (5.7%) treatment-emergent adverse events in the ON101 group versus five (4.4%) in the standard care group.

There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in the ON101 group versus one (0.9%) in the comparator group.

The study was funded by Oneness Biotech, Microbio Group, and Shanghai Haihe Pharmaceutical. One author has reported receiving fees from Oneness Biotech, and Dr. Chang has reported receiving a speakers fee from Oneness Biotech. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ON101 (Fespixon, Oneness Biotech), a first-in-class, macrophage-regulating, wound-healing cream for diabetic foot ulcers has shown benefit over absorbent dressings in a phase 3 trial, with another trial ongoing.

The product became available in Taiwan on July 4, 2021, after receiving regulatory approval from the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration based on efficacy and safety findings in a three-country phase 3 clinical trial.  

Oneness Biotech has also just started a second phase 3 trial in the United States, with a planned enrollment of 208 patients with diabetic foot ulcers, which will compare ON101 cream versus placebo cream, in addition to standard care, over 20 weeks.

The company expects to complete that trial and file a new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023, and a global launch is planned for 2025, said Oneness Biotech founder and CEO William Lu.
 

Current and upcoming trials

The Taiwan FDA approval of ON101 was based on a 236-patient clinical trial conducted in Taiwan, China, and the United States by Yu-Yao Huang MD, PhD, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and colleagues, which was published online Sept. 3, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The study results will also be presented during an oral session at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting on Sept. 30.

The published trial showed that foot ulcers treated with ON101 cream were almost three times more likely to be completely healed at 16 weeks than those treated with standard care with an absorbent dressing (Aquacel Hydrofiber, ConvaTec) (odds ratio, 2.84; P < .001).

“The findings of this study suggest that ON101, a macrophage regulator that behaves differently from moisture-retaining dressings, represents an active-healing alternative for home and primary care of patients with chronic [diabetic foot ulcers],” the researchers concluded.

“ON101 was also granted a fast track designation by the U.S. FDA in March this year,” senior author Shun-Chen Chang, MD, Taipei Medical University–Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

“Patients in the United States can access this new drug via the expanded access program or by participating in the second phase 3 trial in the United States,” added coauthor Shawn M. Cazzell, DPM, chief medical officer, Limb Preservation Platform, Fresno, Calif., who is involved with both trials.

It is “exciting” to have a new therapy for diabetic foot ulcers, said Dr. Cazzell, because they are serious and life-threatening.
 

Could cream with plant extracts surpass current care?

Current standard clinical care for diabetic foot ulcer consists of debridement, off-loading, infection control, and maintaining a moist environment with dressings, Huang and colleagues explain. If the foot ulcer does not respond, growth factors, tissue-engineering products, hyperbaric oxygen, or negative pressure wound therapies may be used.

However, the number of amputations from chronic diabetic foot ulcers that do not heal is increasing, pointing to a need for better treatment options.  

Hyperglycemia increases the ratio of M1 proinflammatory macrophages to M2 proregenerative macrophages, and accumulating evidence suggests this might be a potential treatment target.  

Researchers at Oneness Biotech showed that ON101, which is comprised of extracts from two plants, Plectranthus amboinicus and Centella asiatica, exerts a wound-healing effect by regulating the balance between M1 and M2 macrophages.

An extract of one plant suppresses inflammation, while an extract of the other increases collagen synthesis.

In preclinical studies, these two plant extracts had a synergistic effect on balancing the ratio of M1 to M2 macrophages and accelerating wound healing in a mouse model. This was followed by promising efficacy and safety results in two trials of 24 patients and 30 patients.
 

Significantly better healing with ON101 than standard care

For the current phase 3, randomized clinical trial, researchers enrolled patients in 21 clinics from November 2012 to May 2020.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to be 20-80 years old, with a hemoglobin A1c less than 12%. They also had to have a Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcer that was 1-25 cm² after debridement, had been treated with standard care, and was present for at least 4 weeks.

Patients were a mean age of 57 years and 74% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, and 61% had had diabetes for more than 10 years.

Most (78%) of the diabetic foot ulcers were Wagner grade 2. The wounds had a mean area of 4.8 cm² and had been present for a mean of 7 months.

Patients were instructed on how to self-administer ON101 cream twice a day (treatment group, n = 122) or how to apply an absorbent dressing and change it daily or two or three times a week (standard care group, n = 114). All patients were allowed to apply a sterile gauze dressing.  

They visited the clinic every 2 weeks during the 16-week treatment phase and 12-week observation phase.

In the full analysis set, 74 patients (61%) in the ON101 group and 40 patients (35%) in the standard care group had complete wound healing after 16 weeks of treatment.

The subgroup of patients at higher risk of poor wound healing (A1c >9%, ulcer area >5 cm², and diabetic foot ulcer duration >6 months) also had significantly better healing with the ON101 cream than standard care.

There were seven (5.7%) treatment-emergent adverse events in the ON101 group versus five (4.4%) in the standard care group.

There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in the ON101 group versus one (0.9%) in the comparator group.

The study was funded by Oneness Biotech, Microbio Group, and Shanghai Haihe Pharmaceutical. One author has reported receiving fees from Oneness Biotech, and Dr. Chang has reported receiving a speakers fee from Oneness Biotech. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ON101 (Fespixon, Oneness Biotech), a first-in-class, macrophage-regulating, wound-healing cream for diabetic foot ulcers has shown benefit over absorbent dressings in a phase 3 trial, with another trial ongoing.

The product became available in Taiwan on July 4, 2021, after receiving regulatory approval from the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration based on efficacy and safety findings in a three-country phase 3 clinical trial.  

Oneness Biotech has also just started a second phase 3 trial in the United States, with a planned enrollment of 208 patients with diabetic foot ulcers, which will compare ON101 cream versus placebo cream, in addition to standard care, over 20 weeks.

The company expects to complete that trial and file a new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023, and a global launch is planned for 2025, said Oneness Biotech founder and CEO William Lu.
 

Current and upcoming trials

The Taiwan FDA approval of ON101 was based on a 236-patient clinical trial conducted in Taiwan, China, and the United States by Yu-Yao Huang MD, PhD, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, and colleagues, which was published online Sept. 3, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The study results will also be presented during an oral session at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting on Sept. 30.

The published trial showed that foot ulcers treated with ON101 cream were almost three times more likely to be completely healed at 16 weeks than those treated with standard care with an absorbent dressing (Aquacel Hydrofiber, ConvaTec) (odds ratio, 2.84; P < .001).

“The findings of this study suggest that ON101, a macrophage regulator that behaves differently from moisture-retaining dressings, represents an active-healing alternative for home and primary care of patients with chronic [diabetic foot ulcers],” the researchers concluded.

“ON101 was also granted a fast track designation by the U.S. FDA in March this year,” senior author Shun-Chen Chang, MD, Taipei Medical University–Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan, said in an interview.

“Patients in the United States can access this new drug via the expanded access program or by participating in the second phase 3 trial in the United States,” added coauthor Shawn M. Cazzell, DPM, chief medical officer, Limb Preservation Platform, Fresno, Calif., who is involved with both trials.

It is “exciting” to have a new therapy for diabetic foot ulcers, said Dr. Cazzell, because they are serious and life-threatening.
 

Could cream with plant extracts surpass current care?

Current standard clinical care for diabetic foot ulcer consists of debridement, off-loading, infection control, and maintaining a moist environment with dressings, Huang and colleagues explain. If the foot ulcer does not respond, growth factors, tissue-engineering products, hyperbaric oxygen, or negative pressure wound therapies may be used.

However, the number of amputations from chronic diabetic foot ulcers that do not heal is increasing, pointing to a need for better treatment options.  

Hyperglycemia increases the ratio of M1 proinflammatory macrophages to M2 proregenerative macrophages, and accumulating evidence suggests this might be a potential treatment target.  

Researchers at Oneness Biotech showed that ON101, which is comprised of extracts from two plants, Plectranthus amboinicus and Centella asiatica, exerts a wound-healing effect by regulating the balance between M1 and M2 macrophages.

An extract of one plant suppresses inflammation, while an extract of the other increases collagen synthesis.

In preclinical studies, these two plant extracts had a synergistic effect on balancing the ratio of M1 to M2 macrophages and accelerating wound healing in a mouse model. This was followed by promising efficacy and safety results in two trials of 24 patients and 30 patients.
 

Significantly better healing with ON101 than standard care

For the current phase 3, randomized clinical trial, researchers enrolled patients in 21 clinics from November 2012 to May 2020.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to be 20-80 years old, with a hemoglobin A1c less than 12%. They also had to have a Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcer that was 1-25 cm² after debridement, had been treated with standard care, and was present for at least 4 weeks.

Patients were a mean age of 57 years and 74% were men. They had a mean A1c of 8.1%, and 61% had had diabetes for more than 10 years.

Most (78%) of the diabetic foot ulcers were Wagner grade 2. The wounds had a mean area of 4.8 cm² and had been present for a mean of 7 months.

Patients were instructed on how to self-administer ON101 cream twice a day (treatment group, n = 122) or how to apply an absorbent dressing and change it daily or two or three times a week (standard care group, n = 114). All patients were allowed to apply a sterile gauze dressing.  

They visited the clinic every 2 weeks during the 16-week treatment phase and 12-week observation phase.

In the full analysis set, 74 patients (61%) in the ON101 group and 40 patients (35%) in the standard care group had complete wound healing after 16 weeks of treatment.

The subgroup of patients at higher risk of poor wound healing (A1c >9%, ulcer area >5 cm², and diabetic foot ulcer duration >6 months) also had significantly better healing with the ON101 cream than standard care.

There were seven (5.7%) treatment-emergent adverse events in the ON101 group versus five (4.4%) in the standard care group.

There were no treatment-related serious adverse events in the ON101 group versus one (0.9%) in the comparator group.

The study was funded by Oneness Biotech, Microbio Group, and Shanghai Haihe Pharmaceutical. One author has reported receiving fees from Oneness Biotech, and Dr. Chang has reported receiving a speakers fee from Oneness Biotech. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Friday, July 16, 2021, marked the end of a week on duty in the hospital, and it was time to celebrate with a nice dinner out with my wife, since COVID-19 masking requirements had been lifted in our part of California for people like us who were fully vaccinated.

We always loved a nice dinner out and missed it so much during the pandemic. Unlike 6 months earlier, when I was administering dexamethasone, remdesivir, and high-flow oxygen to half of the patients on my panel, not a single patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, much less treated for it, during the previous week. We were doing so well in Sacramento that the hospital visitation rules had been relaxed and vaccinated patients were not required to have a negative COVID-19 test prior to hospital admission.

Saturday was game 5 of the NBA finals, so we had two couples join us for the game at our house; no masks because we were all vaccinated. On Sunday, we visited our neighbors who had just had a new baby boy and made them the gift of some baby books. The new mom had struggled with the decision of whether to get vaccinated during her pregnancy, but eventually decided to complete the vaccination cycle prior to delivery. She was fully immune at the time of the baby’s birth, wisely wanting the baby to have passive immunity through her. We kept an appropriate distance, and never touched baby or mom, but since masking guidelines had been lifted for the vaccinated,we didn’t bother with them.

On Monday, I felt a little something in my nose but still pursued my usual workout. Interestingly, my performance wasn’t up to my usual standards. There was a meeting that evening that I had to prepare for, when all of a sudden I felt very fatigued. I lay down and slept for a good hour, which disrupted my preparation. I warned the participants that I was feeling a little under the weather, but they wanted to proceed. At this point, I decided it was time to start wearing a mask again.

More meetings on Tuesday morning, but I made sure that I was fully masked. That little thing in my nose had blown up into a full-scale rhinitis, requiring Kleenex and decongestants. Plus, the fatigue was hitting me very hard. “Dang!” I thought. “I haven’t had a cold since 2019. All those COVID-19 precautions not only worked against COVID-19 (which I never got) but also worked against the common cold, which I had now.”

I finished up my meetings and laid down for a good hour and a half. As the father of two, I had plenty of experience with the common cold, and I knew that plenty of rest and hydration was the key to kicking this thing. Besides, my 55th birthday was coming up, and I wanted to make sure I was fully recovered for the festivities my wife was planning for me. Nonetheless, I scheduled myself for a COVID-19 test. I knew this couldn’t be COVID-19 because I was fully vaccinated, but it was hitting me so hard. It had to be a virus that my body had never seen before; maybe the human metapneumovirus. That was my line of reasoning, anyway.

Wednesday was another day on the couch because of continued severe fatigue and myalgias. I figured another good day of rest would help me kick this cold in time for my birthday celebration. Then the COVID-19 results came back positive. “How could this be? I was vaccinated?!” Admittedly I had been more relaxed with masking, per the CDC and county guidelines, but I always wore a mask when I was seeing patients in the hospital. Yeah, I wasn’t wearing an N95 anymore, and I had given up my goggles months ago, but we just weren’t seeing much COVID-19 anymore, so a plain surgical mask was all that was required and seemed sufficient. I had been reading articles about the new Delta variant that was becoming dominant across the country, and reports were that the vaccine was still effective against the Delta variant. However, I was experiencing the COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection because of the remarkable talent the Delta variant has for replicating and producing high levels of viremia.

My first thoughts were for my family, of course. As my illness unfolded, I had kept checking in with them to see if they had any of these “cold” symptoms I had; none of them did. When my test came back positive, we all went into quarantine immediately and they went to get tested; all of them were negative. Next, I contacted the people I had been meeting with that week and warned them that I had tested positive. Despite my mask, and their fully vaccinated status, they needed to get tested. They did, and they were negative. I realized that I was probably contagious, though asymptomatic, on Saturday night when we had friends over to watch the NBA finals. Yeah, everyone was vaccinated, but if I could get sick from this new Delta variant, they could too. The public health department sent me a survey when they found out about my positive test, and they pinpointed Saturday as the day I started to be contagious. I told my friends that I was probably contagious when they were over for the game, and that they should get tested. They did, and everyone came back negative for COVID-19.

Wait a minute; what about Sunday night? The newborn baby and the sleep-deprived mom. Oh no! I was contagious then as well. We kept our distance, and were only there for about 10 minutes, but if I felt bad from COVID-19, I felt worse for exposing them to the virus.

I am no Anthony Fauci, and I am grateful that we have had levelheaded scientists like him to lead us through this terrible experience. I am sure there will be many papers written about COVID-19 breakthrough infections in the future, but I have many thoughts from this experience. First, my practice of wearing an N95 and goggles for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients, during the height of the pandemic was effective. Prior to getting vaccinated, my antibody tests were negative, so I never contracted the illness when I stuck to this regimen. Second, we all want to get back to something that looks like “normal,” but because there are large unvaccinated populations in the community the virus will continue to propagate and evolve, and hence everyone is at risk. While the guidelines said it was okay to ease up on our restrictions, because so many people are not vaccinated, we all must continue to keep our guard up. Third, would a booster shot have saved me from this fate? Because I was on the front lines of the pandemic as a hospitalist, I was also among the first members of my community to get vaccinated, receiving my second shot on Jan. 14, 2021. My wife was not in any risk group, was not on any vaccine priority list, and didn’t complete the series until early April. If I was going to give the infection to anyone, it would have been her. Not only did she never develop symptoms, but she also repeatedly tested negative, as did everyone else that I was in contact with when I was most contagious. The thing that was different about me from everyone else was that I had gotten the vaccine well ahead of them. Had my immunity waned over the months?

The good news is that, while I wouldn’t characterize what I had as “mild,” it certainly wasn’t protracted. Yes, I was a good boy, and did the basics: stay hydrated and get plenty of sleep. I was really bad off for about 3 days, and I hate to think what it would have been like if I had coexisting conditions such as asthma or diabetes. We all know what a bad case of COVID-19 looks like in the unvaccinated, with months in the hospital, intravenous infusions, and high-flow oxygen for the lucky ones. I had nothing remotely like that. The dominant symptom I had was incapacitating fatigue and significant body aches. The second night I had some major chills, sweats, and wild dreams. From a respiratory standpoint, I had bad rhinitis and a wicked cough for a while that tapered off. My oxygen saturations dropped into the mid 90’s, but never below 94%. But if I had been ten times sicker, I doubt I would have survived. I was on quarantine for 10 days but I highly doubt I was at all contagious by day 5, based on my symptoms and the fact that nobody around me turned COVID positive with repeat testing.

I was so relieved that none of my contacts when I was most contagious turned positive for COVID-19. Though not scientific, I find that illustrative. While I should have canceled my meetings on Monday and Tuesday, everybody knew I had a “cold” and nobody wanted to cancel. Nobody thought it possible that I had COVID-19, especially me. The Delta variant is notorious for generating high levels of viremia, yet I didn’t get anybody sick, not even my wife. That suggests to me that, while the vaccine doesn’t eliminate the risk of infection – which we already knew – it probably significantly reduced my infectivity. For that I am very grateful. Now that I can say that I had the COVID-19 experience, I can tell you it feels terrible. But I would have felt much worse if I had gotten others ill. My personal belief is that while the vaccine didn’t save me from disease, it dramatically truncated my illness, and significantly reduced my risk of passing the virus on to my friends and family.

So where did I contract the virus? We were unmasked at dinner on Friday night, which was acceptable in Yolo County at that time. By the way, I actually live in Yolo County, not YOLO (you only live once) county. You can imagine the latter would be a bit more loosey-goosey with the masking requirements. That notwithstanding, I don’t think the dinner was where I picked it up because it was too short of an incubation period. My wife and I obviously reacted differently, as I discussed, but we were both at the restaurant. She didn’t get COVID-19 and I did. I think that I probably picked it up at the hospital, because, while I was wearing a mask there, I was only wearing a surgical mask, not an N95. And I wasn’t wearing goggles anymore. While none of my patients were officially diagnosed with COVID-19, I was encountering a lot of people, getting in relatively close contact, and guidelines were being relaxed, including preadmission COVID-19 testing.

I was an outlier, as I have pointed out; none of my other close contacts contracted COVID-19. A lot of politics and public opinion is driven by outlier cases, and even pure fabrications these days; we certainly can’t create public health policy based on an outlier. I am not suggesting that my experience is any basis for rewriting the rules of COVID-19. The experience has given me pause to think through many facets of this horrible illness we have had to deal with in so many ways, however. And I have also reexamined my own practice for protecting myself in the hospital. Clearly what I was doing in the height of the pandemic was effective, and my more relaxed recent practices were not. Now that I am fully recovered after a relatively unique encounter with the condition, I look forward to seeing what the scientists and public policy makers do with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases. So, between us hospitalist friends and colleagues, regardless of the policy guidelines, I say we keep on masking.

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016.

Friday, July 16, 2021, marked the end of a week on duty in the hospital, and it was time to celebrate with a nice dinner out with my wife, since COVID-19 masking requirements had been lifted in our part of California for people like us who were fully vaccinated.

We always loved a nice dinner out and missed it so much during the pandemic. Unlike 6 months earlier, when I was administering dexamethasone, remdesivir, and high-flow oxygen to half of the patients on my panel, not a single patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, much less treated for it, during the previous week. We were doing so well in Sacramento that the hospital visitation rules had been relaxed and vaccinated patients were not required to have a negative COVID-19 test prior to hospital admission.

Saturday was game 5 of the NBA finals, so we had two couples join us for the game at our house; no masks because we were all vaccinated. On Sunday, we visited our neighbors who had just had a new baby boy and made them the gift of some baby books. The new mom had struggled with the decision of whether to get vaccinated during her pregnancy, but eventually decided to complete the vaccination cycle prior to delivery. She was fully immune at the time of the baby’s birth, wisely wanting the baby to have passive immunity through her. We kept an appropriate distance, and never touched baby or mom, but since masking guidelines had been lifted for the vaccinated,we didn’t bother with them.

On Monday, I felt a little something in my nose but still pursued my usual workout. Interestingly, my performance wasn’t up to my usual standards. There was a meeting that evening that I had to prepare for, when all of a sudden I felt very fatigued. I lay down and slept for a good hour, which disrupted my preparation. I warned the participants that I was feeling a little under the weather, but they wanted to proceed. At this point, I decided it was time to start wearing a mask again.

More meetings on Tuesday morning, but I made sure that I was fully masked. That little thing in my nose had blown up into a full-scale rhinitis, requiring Kleenex and decongestants. Plus, the fatigue was hitting me very hard. “Dang!” I thought. “I haven’t had a cold since 2019. All those COVID-19 precautions not only worked against COVID-19 (which I never got) but also worked against the common cold, which I had now.”

I finished up my meetings and laid down for a good hour and a half. As the father of two, I had plenty of experience with the common cold, and I knew that plenty of rest and hydration was the key to kicking this thing. Besides, my 55th birthday was coming up, and I wanted to make sure I was fully recovered for the festivities my wife was planning for me. Nonetheless, I scheduled myself for a COVID-19 test. I knew this couldn’t be COVID-19 because I was fully vaccinated, but it was hitting me so hard. It had to be a virus that my body had never seen before; maybe the human metapneumovirus. That was my line of reasoning, anyway.

Wednesday was another day on the couch because of continued severe fatigue and myalgias. I figured another good day of rest would help me kick this cold in time for my birthday celebration. Then the COVID-19 results came back positive. “How could this be? I was vaccinated?!” Admittedly I had been more relaxed with masking, per the CDC and county guidelines, but I always wore a mask when I was seeing patients in the hospital. Yeah, I wasn’t wearing an N95 anymore, and I had given up my goggles months ago, but we just weren’t seeing much COVID-19 anymore, so a plain surgical mask was all that was required and seemed sufficient. I had been reading articles about the new Delta variant that was becoming dominant across the country, and reports were that the vaccine was still effective against the Delta variant. However, I was experiencing the COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection because of the remarkable talent the Delta variant has for replicating and producing high levels of viremia.

My first thoughts were for my family, of course. As my illness unfolded, I had kept checking in with them to see if they had any of these “cold” symptoms I had; none of them did. When my test came back positive, we all went into quarantine immediately and they went to get tested; all of them were negative. Next, I contacted the people I had been meeting with that week and warned them that I had tested positive. Despite my mask, and their fully vaccinated status, they needed to get tested. They did, and they were negative. I realized that I was probably contagious, though asymptomatic, on Saturday night when we had friends over to watch the NBA finals. Yeah, everyone was vaccinated, but if I could get sick from this new Delta variant, they could too. The public health department sent me a survey when they found out about my positive test, and they pinpointed Saturday as the day I started to be contagious. I told my friends that I was probably contagious when they were over for the game, and that they should get tested. They did, and everyone came back negative for COVID-19.

Wait a minute; what about Sunday night? The newborn baby and the sleep-deprived mom. Oh no! I was contagious then as well. We kept our distance, and were only there for about 10 minutes, but if I felt bad from COVID-19, I felt worse for exposing them to the virus.

I am no Anthony Fauci, and I am grateful that we have had levelheaded scientists like him to lead us through this terrible experience. I am sure there will be many papers written about COVID-19 breakthrough infections in the future, but I have many thoughts from this experience. First, my practice of wearing an N95 and goggles for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients, during the height of the pandemic was effective. Prior to getting vaccinated, my antibody tests were negative, so I never contracted the illness when I stuck to this regimen. Second, we all want to get back to something that looks like “normal,” but because there are large unvaccinated populations in the community the virus will continue to propagate and evolve, and hence everyone is at risk. While the guidelines said it was okay to ease up on our restrictions, because so many people are not vaccinated, we all must continue to keep our guard up. Third, would a booster shot have saved me from this fate? Because I was on the front lines of the pandemic as a hospitalist, I was also among the first members of my community to get vaccinated, receiving my second shot on Jan. 14, 2021. My wife was not in any risk group, was not on any vaccine priority list, and didn’t complete the series until early April. If I was going to give the infection to anyone, it would have been her. Not only did she never develop symptoms, but she also repeatedly tested negative, as did everyone else that I was in contact with when I was most contagious. The thing that was different about me from everyone else was that I had gotten the vaccine well ahead of them. Had my immunity waned over the months?

The good news is that, while I wouldn’t characterize what I had as “mild,” it certainly wasn’t protracted. Yes, I was a good boy, and did the basics: stay hydrated and get plenty of sleep. I was really bad off for about 3 days, and I hate to think what it would have been like if I had coexisting conditions such as asthma or diabetes. We all know what a bad case of COVID-19 looks like in the unvaccinated, with months in the hospital, intravenous infusions, and high-flow oxygen for the lucky ones. I had nothing remotely like that. The dominant symptom I had was incapacitating fatigue and significant body aches. The second night I had some major chills, sweats, and wild dreams. From a respiratory standpoint, I had bad rhinitis and a wicked cough for a while that tapered off. My oxygen saturations dropped into the mid 90’s, but never below 94%. But if I had been ten times sicker, I doubt I would have survived. I was on quarantine for 10 days but I highly doubt I was at all contagious by day 5, based on my symptoms and the fact that nobody around me turned COVID positive with repeat testing.

I was so relieved that none of my contacts when I was most contagious turned positive for COVID-19. Though not scientific, I find that illustrative. While I should have canceled my meetings on Monday and Tuesday, everybody knew I had a “cold” and nobody wanted to cancel. Nobody thought it possible that I had COVID-19, especially me. The Delta variant is notorious for generating high levels of viremia, yet I didn’t get anybody sick, not even my wife. That suggests to me that, while the vaccine doesn’t eliminate the risk of infection – which we already knew – it probably significantly reduced my infectivity. For that I am very grateful. Now that I can say that I had the COVID-19 experience, I can tell you it feels terrible. But I would have felt much worse if I had gotten others ill. My personal belief is that while the vaccine didn’t save me from disease, it dramatically truncated my illness, and significantly reduced my risk of passing the virus on to my friends and family.

So where did I contract the virus? We were unmasked at dinner on Friday night, which was acceptable in Yolo County at that time. By the way, I actually live in Yolo County, not YOLO (you only live once) county. You can imagine the latter would be a bit more loosey-goosey with the masking requirements. That notwithstanding, I don’t think the dinner was where I picked it up because it was too short of an incubation period. My wife and I obviously reacted differently, as I discussed, but we were both at the restaurant. She didn’t get COVID-19 and I did. I think that I probably picked it up at the hospital, because, while I was wearing a mask there, I was only wearing a surgical mask, not an N95. And I wasn’t wearing goggles anymore. While none of my patients were officially diagnosed with COVID-19, I was encountering a lot of people, getting in relatively close contact, and guidelines were being relaxed, including preadmission COVID-19 testing.

I was an outlier, as I have pointed out; none of my other close contacts contracted COVID-19. A lot of politics and public opinion is driven by outlier cases, and even pure fabrications these days; we certainly can’t create public health policy based on an outlier. I am not suggesting that my experience is any basis for rewriting the rules of COVID-19. The experience has given me pause to think through many facets of this horrible illness we have had to deal with in so many ways, however. And I have also reexamined my own practice for protecting myself in the hospital. Clearly what I was doing in the height of the pandemic was effective, and my more relaxed recent practices were not. Now that I am fully recovered after a relatively unique encounter with the condition, I look forward to seeing what the scientists and public policy makers do with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases. So, between us hospitalist friends and colleagues, regardless of the policy guidelines, I say we keep on masking.

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016.

Friday, July 16, 2021, marked the end of a week on duty in the hospital, and it was time to celebrate with a nice dinner out with my wife, since COVID-19 masking requirements had been lifted in our part of California for people like us who were fully vaccinated.

We always loved a nice dinner out and missed it so much during the pandemic. Unlike 6 months earlier, when I was administering dexamethasone, remdesivir, and high-flow oxygen to half of the patients on my panel, not a single patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, much less treated for it, during the previous week. We were doing so well in Sacramento that the hospital visitation rules had been relaxed and vaccinated patients were not required to have a negative COVID-19 test prior to hospital admission.

Saturday was game 5 of the NBA finals, so we had two couples join us for the game at our house; no masks because we were all vaccinated. On Sunday, we visited our neighbors who had just had a new baby boy and made them the gift of some baby books. The new mom had struggled with the decision of whether to get vaccinated during her pregnancy, but eventually decided to complete the vaccination cycle prior to delivery. She was fully immune at the time of the baby’s birth, wisely wanting the baby to have passive immunity through her. We kept an appropriate distance, and never touched baby or mom, but since masking guidelines had been lifted for the vaccinated,we didn’t bother with them.

On Monday, I felt a little something in my nose but still pursued my usual workout. Interestingly, my performance wasn’t up to my usual standards. There was a meeting that evening that I had to prepare for, when all of a sudden I felt very fatigued. I lay down and slept for a good hour, which disrupted my preparation. I warned the participants that I was feeling a little under the weather, but they wanted to proceed. At this point, I decided it was time to start wearing a mask again.

More meetings on Tuesday morning, but I made sure that I was fully masked. That little thing in my nose had blown up into a full-scale rhinitis, requiring Kleenex and decongestants. Plus, the fatigue was hitting me very hard. “Dang!” I thought. “I haven’t had a cold since 2019. All those COVID-19 precautions not only worked against COVID-19 (which I never got) but also worked against the common cold, which I had now.”

I finished up my meetings and laid down for a good hour and a half. As the father of two, I had plenty of experience with the common cold, and I knew that plenty of rest and hydration was the key to kicking this thing. Besides, my 55th birthday was coming up, and I wanted to make sure I was fully recovered for the festivities my wife was planning for me. Nonetheless, I scheduled myself for a COVID-19 test. I knew this couldn’t be COVID-19 because I was fully vaccinated, but it was hitting me so hard. It had to be a virus that my body had never seen before; maybe the human metapneumovirus. That was my line of reasoning, anyway.

Wednesday was another day on the couch because of continued severe fatigue and myalgias. I figured another good day of rest would help me kick this cold in time for my birthday celebration. Then the COVID-19 results came back positive. “How could this be? I was vaccinated?!” Admittedly I had been more relaxed with masking, per the CDC and county guidelines, but I always wore a mask when I was seeing patients in the hospital. Yeah, I wasn’t wearing an N95 anymore, and I had given up my goggles months ago, but we just weren’t seeing much COVID-19 anymore, so a plain surgical mask was all that was required and seemed sufficient. I had been reading articles about the new Delta variant that was becoming dominant across the country, and reports were that the vaccine was still effective against the Delta variant. However, I was experiencing the COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection because of the remarkable talent the Delta variant has for replicating and producing high levels of viremia.

My first thoughts were for my family, of course. As my illness unfolded, I had kept checking in with them to see if they had any of these “cold” symptoms I had; none of them did. When my test came back positive, we all went into quarantine immediately and they went to get tested; all of them were negative. Next, I contacted the people I had been meeting with that week and warned them that I had tested positive. Despite my mask, and their fully vaccinated status, they needed to get tested. They did, and they were negative. I realized that I was probably contagious, though asymptomatic, on Saturday night when we had friends over to watch the NBA finals. Yeah, everyone was vaccinated, but if I could get sick from this new Delta variant, they could too. The public health department sent me a survey when they found out about my positive test, and they pinpointed Saturday as the day I started to be contagious. I told my friends that I was probably contagious when they were over for the game, and that they should get tested. They did, and everyone came back negative for COVID-19.

Wait a minute; what about Sunday night? The newborn baby and the sleep-deprived mom. Oh no! I was contagious then as well. We kept our distance, and were only there for about 10 minutes, but if I felt bad from COVID-19, I felt worse for exposing them to the virus.

I am no Anthony Fauci, and I am grateful that we have had levelheaded scientists like him to lead us through this terrible experience. I am sure there will be many papers written about COVID-19 breakthrough infections in the future, but I have many thoughts from this experience. First, my practice of wearing an N95 and goggles for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients, during the height of the pandemic was effective. Prior to getting vaccinated, my antibody tests were negative, so I never contracted the illness when I stuck to this regimen. Second, we all want to get back to something that looks like “normal,” but because there are large unvaccinated populations in the community the virus will continue to propagate and evolve, and hence everyone is at risk. While the guidelines said it was okay to ease up on our restrictions, because so many people are not vaccinated, we all must continue to keep our guard up. Third, would a booster shot have saved me from this fate? Because I was on the front lines of the pandemic as a hospitalist, I was also among the first members of my community to get vaccinated, receiving my second shot on Jan. 14, 2021. My wife was not in any risk group, was not on any vaccine priority list, and didn’t complete the series until early April. If I was going to give the infection to anyone, it would have been her. Not only did she never develop symptoms, but she also repeatedly tested negative, as did everyone else that I was in contact with when I was most contagious. The thing that was different about me from everyone else was that I had gotten the vaccine well ahead of them. Had my immunity waned over the months?

The good news is that, while I wouldn’t characterize what I had as “mild,” it certainly wasn’t protracted. Yes, I was a good boy, and did the basics: stay hydrated and get plenty of sleep. I was really bad off for about 3 days, and I hate to think what it would have been like if I had coexisting conditions such as asthma or diabetes. We all know what a bad case of COVID-19 looks like in the unvaccinated, with months in the hospital, intravenous infusions, and high-flow oxygen for the lucky ones. I had nothing remotely like that. The dominant symptom I had was incapacitating fatigue and significant body aches. The second night I had some major chills, sweats, and wild dreams. From a respiratory standpoint, I had bad rhinitis and a wicked cough for a while that tapered off. My oxygen saturations dropped into the mid 90’s, but never below 94%. But if I had been ten times sicker, I doubt I would have survived. I was on quarantine for 10 days but I highly doubt I was at all contagious by day 5, based on my symptoms and the fact that nobody around me turned COVID positive with repeat testing.

I was so relieved that none of my contacts when I was most contagious turned positive for COVID-19. Though not scientific, I find that illustrative. While I should have canceled my meetings on Monday and Tuesday, everybody knew I had a “cold” and nobody wanted to cancel. Nobody thought it possible that I had COVID-19, especially me. The Delta variant is notorious for generating high levels of viremia, yet I didn’t get anybody sick, not even my wife. That suggests to me that, while the vaccine doesn’t eliminate the risk of infection – which we already knew – it probably significantly reduced my infectivity. For that I am very grateful. Now that I can say that I had the COVID-19 experience, I can tell you it feels terrible. But I would have felt much worse if I had gotten others ill. My personal belief is that while the vaccine didn’t save me from disease, it dramatically truncated my illness, and significantly reduced my risk of passing the virus on to my friends and family.

So where did I contract the virus? We were unmasked at dinner on Friday night, which was acceptable in Yolo County at that time. By the way, I actually live in Yolo County, not YOLO (you only live once) county. You can imagine the latter would be a bit more loosey-goosey with the masking requirements. That notwithstanding, I don’t think the dinner was where I picked it up because it was too short of an incubation period. My wife and I obviously reacted differently, as I discussed, but we were both at the restaurant. She didn’t get COVID-19 and I did. I think that I probably picked it up at the hospital, because, while I was wearing a mask there, I was only wearing a surgical mask, not an N95. And I wasn’t wearing goggles anymore. While none of my patients were officially diagnosed with COVID-19, I was encountering a lot of people, getting in relatively close contact, and guidelines were being relaxed, including preadmission COVID-19 testing.

I was an outlier, as I have pointed out; none of my other close contacts contracted COVID-19. A lot of politics and public opinion is driven by outlier cases, and even pure fabrications these days; we certainly can’t create public health policy based on an outlier. I am not suggesting that my experience is any basis for rewriting the rules of COVID-19. The experience has given me pause to think through many facets of this horrible illness we have had to deal with in so many ways, however. And I have also reexamined my own practice for protecting myself in the hospital. Clearly what I was doing in the height of the pandemic was effective, and my more relaxed recent practices were not. Now that I am fully recovered after a relatively unique encounter with the condition, I look forward to seeing what the scientists and public policy makers do with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases. So, between us hospitalist friends and colleagues, regardless of the policy guidelines, I say we keep on masking.

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016.

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

An expert panel of 48 dermatologists from 13 countries has developed recommendations to guide efforts aimed at preventing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) in solid organ transplant recipients.

The recommendations were published online on Sept. 1 in JAMA Dermatology.

Because of lifelong immunosuppression, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) have a risk of CSCC that is 20-200 times higher than in the general population and despite a growing literature on prevention of CSCC in these patients, uncertainty remains regarding best practices for various patient scenarios.

Paul Massey, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues used a Delphi process to identify consensus-based medical management recommendations for prevention of CSCC in SOTRs.

The survey design was guided by a novel actinic damage and skin cancer index (AD-SCI) made up of six ordinal stages corresponding to an increasing burden of actinic damage and CSCC.

The AD-SCI stage-based recommendations were established when consensus was reached (80% or higher concordance) or near consensus was reached (70%-80% concordance) among panel members.

For five of the six AD-SCI stages, the panel was able to make recommendations. Key recommendations include:
 

• Cryotherapy for scattered AK.
• Field therapy for AK when grouped in one site, unless AKs are thick, in which case field therapy and cryotherapy are recommended.
• Combination lesion-directed and field therapy with fluorouracil for field cancerized skin.
• Initiation of acitretin therapy and discussion of immunosuppression reduction or modification for patients who develop multiple CSCCs at a high rate (10 per year) or develop high-risk CSCC (defined by a tumor with roughly ≥20% risk of nodal metastasis). The panel did not make a recommendation as to the best immunosuppression modification strategy to pursue.

Lingering questions

The panel was unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for SOTRs with a first low-risk CSCC, reflecting “clinical equipoise” in this situation and the need for further study in this clinical scenario, they say.

The panel did not make a recommendation for use of nicotinamide or capecitabine in any of the six stages, which is “notable,” they acknowledge, given results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial in immunocompetent patients demonstrating benefit in preventing AKs and CSCCs, as reported previously.

Nearly three-quarters of the panel felt that a lack of efficacy data specifically for the SOTR population limited their use of nicotinamide. “Given the low cost, high safety, and demonstration of CSCC reduction in non-SOTRs, nicotinamide administration may be an area for further consideration and expanded study,” the panel wrote.

As for capecitabine, the panel notes that case series in SOTRs have found efficacy for chemoprevention, but randomized controlled studies are lacking. More than half of the panel noted that they did not have routine access to capecitabine in their practice.

The panel recommended routine skin surveillance and sunscreen use for all patients.

“These recommendations reflect consensus among expert transplant dermatologists and the incorporation of limited and sometimes contradictory evidence into real-world clinical experience across a range of CSCC disease severity,” the panel said.

“Areas of consensus may aid physicians in establishing best practices regarding prevention of CSCC in SOTRs in the setting of limited high level of evidence data in this population,” they added.

This research had no specific funding. Author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Regeneron, Sanofi, and receiving research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron, Novartis, and Genentech. A complete list of disclosures for panel members is available with the original article.

An expert panel of 48 dermatologists from 13 countries has developed recommendations to guide efforts aimed at preventing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) in solid organ transplant recipients.

The recommendations were published online on Sept. 1 in JAMA Dermatology.

Because of lifelong immunosuppression, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) have a risk of CSCC that is 20-200 times higher than in the general population and despite a growing literature on prevention of CSCC in these patients, uncertainty remains regarding best practices for various patient scenarios.

Paul Massey, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues used a Delphi process to identify consensus-based medical management recommendations for prevention of CSCC in SOTRs.

The survey design was guided by a novel actinic damage and skin cancer index (AD-SCI) made up of six ordinal stages corresponding to an increasing burden of actinic damage and CSCC.

The AD-SCI stage-based recommendations were established when consensus was reached (80% or higher concordance) or near consensus was reached (70%-80% concordance) among panel members.

For five of the six AD-SCI stages, the panel was able to make recommendations. Key recommendations include:
 

• Cryotherapy for scattered AK.
• Field therapy for AK when grouped in one site, unless AKs are thick, in which case field therapy and cryotherapy are recommended.
• Combination lesion-directed and field therapy with fluorouracil for field cancerized skin.
• Initiation of acitretin therapy and discussion of immunosuppression reduction or modification for patients who develop multiple CSCCs at a high rate (10 per year) or develop high-risk CSCC (defined by a tumor with roughly ≥20% risk of nodal metastasis). The panel did not make a recommendation as to the best immunosuppression modification strategy to pursue.

Lingering questions

The panel was unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for SOTRs with a first low-risk CSCC, reflecting “clinical equipoise” in this situation and the need for further study in this clinical scenario, they say.

The panel did not make a recommendation for use of nicotinamide or capecitabine in any of the six stages, which is “notable,” they acknowledge, given results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial in immunocompetent patients demonstrating benefit in preventing AKs and CSCCs, as reported previously.

Nearly three-quarters of the panel felt that a lack of efficacy data specifically for the SOTR population limited their use of nicotinamide. “Given the low cost, high safety, and demonstration of CSCC reduction in non-SOTRs, nicotinamide administration may be an area for further consideration and expanded study,” the panel wrote.

As for capecitabine, the panel notes that case series in SOTRs have found efficacy for chemoprevention, but randomized controlled studies are lacking. More than half of the panel noted that they did not have routine access to capecitabine in their practice.

The panel recommended routine skin surveillance and sunscreen use for all patients.

“These recommendations reflect consensus among expert transplant dermatologists and the incorporation of limited and sometimes contradictory evidence into real-world clinical experience across a range of CSCC disease severity,” the panel said.

“Areas of consensus may aid physicians in establishing best practices regarding prevention of CSCC in SOTRs in the setting of limited high level of evidence data in this population,” they added.

This research had no specific funding. Author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Regeneron, Sanofi, and receiving research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron, Novartis, and Genentech. A complete list of disclosures for panel members is available with the original article.

An expert panel of 48 dermatologists from 13 countries has developed recommendations to guide efforts aimed at preventing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) in solid organ transplant recipients.

The recommendations were published online on Sept. 1 in JAMA Dermatology.

Because of lifelong immunosuppression, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) have a risk of CSCC that is 20-200 times higher than in the general population and despite a growing literature on prevention of CSCC in these patients, uncertainty remains regarding best practices for various patient scenarios.

Paul Massey, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues used a Delphi process to identify consensus-based medical management recommendations for prevention of CSCC in SOTRs.

The survey design was guided by a novel actinic damage and skin cancer index (AD-SCI) made up of six ordinal stages corresponding to an increasing burden of actinic damage and CSCC.

The AD-SCI stage-based recommendations were established when consensus was reached (80% or higher concordance) or near consensus was reached (70%-80% concordance) among panel members.

For five of the six AD-SCI stages, the panel was able to make recommendations. Key recommendations include:
 

• Cryotherapy for scattered AK.
• Field therapy for AK when grouped in one site, unless AKs are thick, in which case field therapy and cryotherapy are recommended.
• Combination lesion-directed and field therapy with fluorouracil for field cancerized skin.
• Initiation of acitretin therapy and discussion of immunosuppression reduction or modification for patients who develop multiple CSCCs at a high rate (10 per year) or develop high-risk CSCC (defined by a tumor with roughly ≥20% risk of nodal metastasis). The panel did not make a recommendation as to the best immunosuppression modification strategy to pursue.

Lingering questions

The panel was unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for SOTRs with a first low-risk CSCC, reflecting “clinical equipoise” in this situation and the need for further study in this clinical scenario, they say.

The panel did not make a recommendation for use of nicotinamide or capecitabine in any of the six stages, which is “notable,” they acknowledge, given results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial in immunocompetent patients demonstrating benefit in preventing AKs and CSCCs, as reported previously.

Nearly three-quarters of the panel felt that a lack of efficacy data specifically for the SOTR population limited their use of nicotinamide. “Given the low cost, high safety, and demonstration of CSCC reduction in non-SOTRs, nicotinamide administration may be an area for further consideration and expanded study,” the panel wrote.

As for capecitabine, the panel notes that case series in SOTRs have found efficacy for chemoprevention, but randomized controlled studies are lacking. More than half of the panel noted that they did not have routine access to capecitabine in their practice.

The panel recommended routine skin surveillance and sunscreen use for all patients.

“These recommendations reflect consensus among expert transplant dermatologists and the incorporation of limited and sometimes contradictory evidence into real-world clinical experience across a range of CSCC disease severity,” the panel said.

“Areas of consensus may aid physicians in establishing best practices regarding prevention of CSCC in SOTRs in the setting of limited high level of evidence data in this population,” they added.

This research had no specific funding. Author disclosures included serving as a consultant to Regeneron, Sanofi, and receiving research funding from Castle Biosciences, Regeneron, Novartis, and Genentech. A complete list of disclosures for panel members is available with the original article.