Clinician Reviews

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the U.S. hit a record high on Aug. 14, with more than 1,900 in hospitals.

Hospitals across the South are running out of beds as the contagious Delta variant spreads, mostly among unvaccinated people. Children make up about 2.4% of the country’s COVID-19 hospitalizations, and those under 12 are particularly vulnerable since they’re not eligible to receive a vaccine.

“This is not last year’s COVID,” Sally Goza, MD, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told CNN on Aug. 14.

“This one is worse, and our children are the ones that are going to be affected by it the most,” she said.

The number of newly hospitalized COVID-19 patients for ages 18-49 also hit record highs during the week of Aug. 9. A fifth of the nation’s hospitalizations are in Florida, where the number of COVID-19 patients hit a record high of 16,100 on Aug. 14. More than 90% of the state’s intensive care unit beds are filled.

More than 90% of the ICU beds in Texas are full as well. On Aug. 13, there were no pediatric ICU beds available in Dallas or the 19 surrounding counties, which means that young patients would be transported father away for care – even Oklahoma City.

“That means if your child’s in a car wreck, if your child has a congenital heart defect or something and needs an ICU bed, or more likely, if they have COVID and need an ICU bed, we don’t have one,” Clay Jenkins, a Dallas County judge, said on Aug. 13.

“Your child will wait for another child to die,” he said.

As children return to classes, educators are talking about the possibility of vaccine mandates. The National Education Association announced its support of mandatory vaccination for its members.

“Our students under 12 can’t get vaccinated,” Becky Pringle, president of the association, told CNN.

“It’s our responsibility to keep them safe,” she said. “Keeping them safe means that everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated.”

The U.S. now has an average of about 129,000 new COVID-19 cases per day, Reuters reported, which has doubled in about 2 weeks. The number of hospitalized patients is at a 6-month high, and about 600 people are dying each day.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oregon have reported record numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations.

In addition, eight states make up half of all the COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. but only 24% of the nation’s population – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and Texas. These states have vaccination rates lower than the national average, and their COVID-19 patients account for at least 15% of their overall hospitalizations.

To address the surge in hospitalizations, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has ordered the deployment of up to 1,500 Oregon National Guard members to help health care workers.

“I know this is not the summer many of us envisioned,” Gov. Brown said Aug. 13. “The harsh and frustrating reality is that the Delta variant has changed everything. Delta is highly contagious, and we must take action now.”

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

The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the U.S. hit a record high on Aug. 14, with more than 1,900 in hospitals.

Hospitals across the South are running out of beds as the contagious Delta variant spreads, mostly among unvaccinated people. Children make up about 2.4% of the country’s COVID-19 hospitalizations, and those under 12 are particularly vulnerable since they’re not eligible to receive a vaccine.

“This is not last year’s COVID,” Sally Goza, MD, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told CNN on Aug. 14.

“This one is worse, and our children are the ones that are going to be affected by it the most,” she said.

The number of newly hospitalized COVID-19 patients for ages 18-49 also hit record highs during the week of Aug. 9. A fifth of the nation’s hospitalizations are in Florida, where the number of COVID-19 patients hit a record high of 16,100 on Aug. 14. More than 90% of the state’s intensive care unit beds are filled.

More than 90% of the ICU beds in Texas are full as well. On Aug. 13, there were no pediatric ICU beds available in Dallas or the 19 surrounding counties, which means that young patients would be transported father away for care – even Oklahoma City.

“That means if your child’s in a car wreck, if your child has a congenital heart defect or something and needs an ICU bed, or more likely, if they have COVID and need an ICU bed, we don’t have one,” Clay Jenkins, a Dallas County judge, said on Aug. 13.

“Your child will wait for another child to die,” he said.

As children return to classes, educators are talking about the possibility of vaccine mandates. The National Education Association announced its support of mandatory vaccination for its members.

“Our students under 12 can’t get vaccinated,” Becky Pringle, president of the association, told CNN.

“It’s our responsibility to keep them safe,” she said. “Keeping them safe means that everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated.”

The U.S. now has an average of about 129,000 new COVID-19 cases per day, Reuters reported, which has doubled in about 2 weeks. The number of hospitalized patients is at a 6-month high, and about 600 people are dying each day.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oregon have reported record numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations.

In addition, eight states make up half of all the COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. but only 24% of the nation’s population – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and Texas. These states have vaccination rates lower than the national average, and their COVID-19 patients account for at least 15% of their overall hospitalizations.

To address the surge in hospitalizations, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has ordered the deployment of up to 1,500 Oregon National Guard members to help health care workers.

“I know this is not the summer many of us envisioned,” Gov. Brown said Aug. 13. “The harsh and frustrating reality is that the Delta variant has changed everything. Delta is highly contagious, and we must take action now.”

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

The number of children hospitalized with COVID-19 in the U.S. hit a record high on Aug. 14, with more than 1,900 in hospitals.

Hospitals across the South are running out of beds as the contagious Delta variant spreads, mostly among unvaccinated people. Children make up about 2.4% of the country’s COVID-19 hospitalizations, and those under 12 are particularly vulnerable since they’re not eligible to receive a vaccine.

“This is not last year’s COVID,” Sally Goza, MD, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told CNN on Aug. 14.

“This one is worse, and our children are the ones that are going to be affected by it the most,” she said.

The number of newly hospitalized COVID-19 patients for ages 18-49 also hit record highs during the week of Aug. 9. A fifth of the nation’s hospitalizations are in Florida, where the number of COVID-19 patients hit a record high of 16,100 on Aug. 14. More than 90% of the state’s intensive care unit beds are filled.

More than 90% of the ICU beds in Texas are full as well. On Aug. 13, there were no pediatric ICU beds available in Dallas or the 19 surrounding counties, which means that young patients would be transported father away for care – even Oklahoma City.

“That means if your child’s in a car wreck, if your child has a congenital heart defect or something and needs an ICU bed, or more likely, if they have COVID and need an ICU bed, we don’t have one,” Clay Jenkins, a Dallas County judge, said on Aug. 13.

“Your child will wait for another child to die,” he said.

As children return to classes, educators are talking about the possibility of vaccine mandates. The National Education Association announced its support of mandatory vaccination for its members.

“Our students under 12 can’t get vaccinated,” Becky Pringle, president of the association, told CNN.

“It’s our responsibility to keep them safe,” she said. “Keeping them safe means that everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated.”

The U.S. now has an average of about 129,000 new COVID-19 cases per day, Reuters reported, which has doubled in about 2 weeks. The number of hospitalized patients is at a 6-month high, and about 600 people are dying each day.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oregon have reported record numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations.

In addition, eight states make up half of all the COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. but only 24% of the nation’s population – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and Texas. These states have vaccination rates lower than the national average, and their COVID-19 patients account for at least 15% of their overall hospitalizations.

To address the surge in hospitalizations, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has ordered the deployment of up to 1,500 Oregon National Guard members to help health care workers.

“I know this is not the summer many of us envisioned,” Gov. Brown said Aug. 13. “The harsh and frustrating reality is that the Delta variant has changed everything. Delta is highly contagious, and we must take action now.”

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A diet rich in vegetables and low in carbs – a so-called low glycemic index (GI) diet – is associated with clinically significant benefits beyond those provided by existing medications for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, compared with a higher glycemic diet, findings from a new meta-analysis show.

marilyna/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the effects were small, which is not surprising in clinical trials in nutrition, they were clinically meaningful improvements for which our certainty in the effects were moderate to high,” first author Laura Chiavaroli, PhD, of the department of nutritional sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The GI rates foods on the basis of how quickly they affect blood glucose levels.

Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains have a low GI. They also help to regulate blood sugar levels. Such foods are linked to a reduced risk for heart disease among people with diabetes.

But guidelines on this – such as those from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – reflect research published more than 15 years ago, before several key trials were published.

Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues identified 27 randomized controlled trials – the most recent of which was published in May 2021 – that involved a total of 1,617 adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes. For the patients in these trials, diabetes was moderately controlled with glucose-lowering drugs or insulin. All of the included trials examined the effects of a low GI diet or a low glycemic load (GL) diet for people with diabetes over a period 3 or more weeks. The majority of patients in the studies were overweight or had obesity, and they were largely middle-aged.

The meta-analysis, which included new data, was published Aug. 5 in The BMJ. The study “expands the number of relevant intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes, and assesses the certainty of the evidence using GRADE [grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation],” Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues noted.

“The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population and supports existing recommendations for the use of low GI dietary patterns in the management of diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Improvements in A1c, fasting glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides

Overall, compared with people who consumed diets with higher GI/GL ratings, for those who consumed lower glycemic diets, glycemic control was significantly improved, as reflected in A1c level, which was the primary outcome of the study (mean difference, –0.31%; P < .001).

This “would meet the threshold of ≥ 0.3% reduction in HbA1c proposed by the European Medicines Agency as clinically relevant for risk reduction of diabetic complications,” the authors noted.

Those who consumed low glycemic diets also showed improvements in secondary outcomes, including fasting glucose level, which was reduced by 0.36 mmol/L (–6.5 mg/dL), a 6% reduction in low-density cholesterol (LDL-C) (–0.17 mmol/L), and a fall in triglyceride levels (–0.09 mmol/L).

They also lost marginally more body weight, at –0.66 kg (–1.5 pounds). Body mass index was lower by –0.38, and inflammation was reduced (C-reactive protein, –.41 mg/L; all P < .05).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in blood insulin level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, waist circumference, or blood pressure.

Three of the studies showed that participants developed a preference for the low GI diet. “In recent years, there has been a growing interest in whole-food plant-based diets, and there are more options, for example, for pulse-based products,” Dr. Chiavaroli said.

This meta-analysis should support the recommendation of the low-glycemic diet, particularly among people with diabetes, she reiterated.
 

Will larger randomized trial show effect on outcomes?

The authors noted, however, that to determine whether these small improvements in intermediate cardiometabolic risk factors observed with low GI diets translate to reductions in cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, and retinopathy among people with diabetes, larger randomized trials are needed.

One such trial, the Low Glycemic Index Diet for Type 2 Diabetics, includes 169 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and subclinical atherosclerosis. The investigators are evaluating the effect of a low GI diet on the progression of atherosclerosis, as assessed by vascular MRI over 3 years.

“We await the results,” they said.

The study received funding from the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) as part of the development of the EASD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy. The study was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network. The Diet, Digestive Tract, and Disease (3D) Center, which is funded through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Ontario Research Fund, provided the infrastructure for the study.

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

A diet rich in vegetables and low in carbs – a so-called low glycemic index (GI) diet – is associated with clinically significant benefits beyond those provided by existing medications for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, compared with a higher glycemic diet, findings from a new meta-analysis show.

marilyna/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the effects were small, which is not surprising in clinical trials in nutrition, they were clinically meaningful improvements for which our certainty in the effects were moderate to high,” first author Laura Chiavaroli, PhD, of the department of nutritional sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The GI rates foods on the basis of how quickly they affect blood glucose levels.

Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains have a low GI. They also help to regulate blood sugar levels. Such foods are linked to a reduced risk for heart disease among people with diabetes.

But guidelines on this – such as those from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – reflect research published more than 15 years ago, before several key trials were published.

Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues identified 27 randomized controlled trials – the most recent of which was published in May 2021 – that involved a total of 1,617 adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes. For the patients in these trials, diabetes was moderately controlled with glucose-lowering drugs or insulin. All of the included trials examined the effects of a low GI diet or a low glycemic load (GL) diet for people with diabetes over a period 3 or more weeks. The majority of patients in the studies were overweight or had obesity, and they were largely middle-aged.

The meta-analysis, which included new data, was published Aug. 5 in The BMJ. The study “expands the number of relevant intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes, and assesses the certainty of the evidence using GRADE [grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation],” Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues noted.

“The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population and supports existing recommendations for the use of low GI dietary patterns in the management of diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Improvements in A1c, fasting glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides

Overall, compared with people who consumed diets with higher GI/GL ratings, for those who consumed lower glycemic diets, glycemic control was significantly improved, as reflected in A1c level, which was the primary outcome of the study (mean difference, –0.31%; P < .001).

This “would meet the threshold of ≥ 0.3% reduction in HbA1c proposed by the European Medicines Agency as clinically relevant for risk reduction of diabetic complications,” the authors noted.

Those who consumed low glycemic diets also showed improvements in secondary outcomes, including fasting glucose level, which was reduced by 0.36 mmol/L (–6.5 mg/dL), a 6% reduction in low-density cholesterol (LDL-C) (–0.17 mmol/L), and a fall in triglyceride levels (–0.09 mmol/L).

They also lost marginally more body weight, at –0.66 kg (–1.5 pounds). Body mass index was lower by –0.38, and inflammation was reduced (C-reactive protein, –.41 mg/L; all P < .05).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in blood insulin level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, waist circumference, or blood pressure.

Three of the studies showed that participants developed a preference for the low GI diet. “In recent years, there has been a growing interest in whole-food plant-based diets, and there are more options, for example, for pulse-based products,” Dr. Chiavaroli said.

This meta-analysis should support the recommendation of the low-glycemic diet, particularly among people with diabetes, she reiterated.
 

Will larger randomized trial show effect on outcomes?

The authors noted, however, that to determine whether these small improvements in intermediate cardiometabolic risk factors observed with low GI diets translate to reductions in cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, and retinopathy among people with diabetes, larger randomized trials are needed.

One such trial, the Low Glycemic Index Diet for Type 2 Diabetics, includes 169 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and subclinical atherosclerosis. The investigators are evaluating the effect of a low GI diet on the progression of atherosclerosis, as assessed by vascular MRI over 3 years.

“We await the results,” they said.

The study received funding from the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) as part of the development of the EASD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy. The study was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network. The Diet, Digestive Tract, and Disease (3D) Center, which is funded through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Ontario Research Fund, provided the infrastructure for the study.

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

A diet rich in vegetables and low in carbs – a so-called low glycemic index (GI) diet – is associated with clinically significant benefits beyond those provided by existing medications for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, compared with a higher glycemic diet, findings from a new meta-analysis show.

marilyna/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Although the effects were small, which is not surprising in clinical trials in nutrition, they were clinically meaningful improvements for which our certainty in the effects were moderate to high,” first author Laura Chiavaroli, PhD, of the department of nutritional sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The GI rates foods on the basis of how quickly they affect blood glucose levels.

Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains have a low GI. They also help to regulate blood sugar levels. Such foods are linked to a reduced risk for heart disease among people with diabetes.

But guidelines on this – such as those from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – reflect research published more than 15 years ago, before several key trials were published.

Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues identified 27 randomized controlled trials – the most recent of which was published in May 2021 – that involved a total of 1,617 adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes. For the patients in these trials, diabetes was moderately controlled with glucose-lowering drugs or insulin. All of the included trials examined the effects of a low GI diet or a low glycemic load (GL) diet for people with diabetes over a period 3 or more weeks. The majority of patients in the studies were overweight or had obesity, and they were largely middle-aged.

The meta-analysis, which included new data, was published Aug. 5 in The BMJ. The study “expands the number of relevant intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes, and assesses the certainty of the evidence using GRADE [grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation],” Dr. Chiavaroli and colleagues noted.

“The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population and supports existing recommendations for the use of low GI dietary patterns in the management of diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Improvements in A1c, fasting glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides

Overall, compared with people who consumed diets with higher GI/GL ratings, for those who consumed lower glycemic diets, glycemic control was significantly improved, as reflected in A1c level, which was the primary outcome of the study (mean difference, –0.31%; P < .001).

This “would meet the threshold of ≥ 0.3% reduction in HbA1c proposed by the European Medicines Agency as clinically relevant for risk reduction of diabetic complications,” the authors noted.

Those who consumed low glycemic diets also showed improvements in secondary outcomes, including fasting glucose level, which was reduced by 0.36 mmol/L (–6.5 mg/dL), a 6% reduction in low-density cholesterol (LDL-C) (–0.17 mmol/L), and a fall in triglyceride levels (–0.09 mmol/L).

They also lost marginally more body weight, at –0.66 kg (–1.5 pounds). Body mass index was lower by –0.38, and inflammation was reduced (C-reactive protein, –.41 mg/L; all P < .05).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in blood insulin level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, waist circumference, or blood pressure.

Three of the studies showed that participants developed a preference for the low GI diet. “In recent years, there has been a growing interest in whole-food plant-based diets, and there are more options, for example, for pulse-based products,” Dr. Chiavaroli said.

This meta-analysis should support the recommendation of the low-glycemic diet, particularly among people with diabetes, she reiterated.
 

Will larger randomized trial show effect on outcomes?

The authors noted, however, that to determine whether these small improvements in intermediate cardiometabolic risk factors observed with low GI diets translate to reductions in cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, and retinopathy among people with diabetes, larger randomized trials are needed.

One such trial, the Low Glycemic Index Diet for Type 2 Diabetics, includes 169 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and subclinical atherosclerosis. The investigators are evaluating the effect of a low GI diet on the progression of atherosclerosis, as assessed by vascular MRI over 3 years.

“We await the results,” they said.

The study received funding from the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) as part of the development of the EASD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy. The study was also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Canada-wide Human Nutrition Trialists’ Network. The Diet, Digestive Tract, and Disease (3D) Center, which is funded through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Ontario Research Fund, provided the infrastructure for the study.

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

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

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

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

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

A nurse in Germany is suspected of giving saline solution rather than the COVID-19 vaccine to more than 8,500 people at a vaccination center this year.

Those who may be affected are being informed about their possible vulnerability to the coronavirus and will be offered COVID-19 shots, according to CBS News.

“I’m totally shocked by the incident,” Sven Ambrosy, a district administrator of Friesland, wrote in a Facebook post on Aug. 10.

“The district of Friesland will do everything possible to ensure that the affected people receive their vaccination protection as soon as possible,” he said.

In late April, a former Red Cross employee who worked at the Roffhausen Vaccination Center in Friesland, a district in Germany’s northern state of Lower Saxony, told a colleague that she filled six syringes with saline instead of the Pfizer vaccine, according to police reports. The nurse said she dropped a vial containing the vaccine while preparing syringes and tried to cover it up.

The nurse was immediately fired, and local authorities conducted antibody tests on more than 100 people who visited the vaccination center on April 21. Since it was impossible to trace who received the saline shots, everyone who visited the center that day was invited to receive a follow-up shot.

But during a police investigation, authorities found evidence that more people were affected. The case now involves 8,557 vaccinations given between March 5 and April 20 at specific times.

Now, authorities are contacting those who were affected by phone or email to schedule new vaccination appointments. They’ve established a dedicated information phone line as well, according to NPR.

Saline solution is harmless, but most people who received shots in Germany during that time were older adults, who are more likely to have severe COVID-19 if infected, according to Reuters.

The nurse has remained silent about the allegations of her giving saline rather than a vaccine to thousands of people, CBS News reported. And it’s unclear whether there have been any arrests or charges related to the case, according to Reuters.

The nurse hasn’t been named publicly, and the motive hasn’t been shared, NPR reported, though the nurse had purportedly expressed skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines in social media posts.

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

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Among patients from a single dermatology practice who were diagnosed with two or more melanomas over an 8-year period, 45% lived more than 20 miles away from the practice, and almost 60% were 70 years of age and older, results from single-center study showed.

“Dermatologists have known that many people are underdiagnosed for melanoma, but now our research supports that the problem is especially concentrated among older patients living in remote areas,” corresponding author Rose Parisi, MBA, said in an interview. “With this information, dermatologists should consider identifying and reaching out to their patients in this at-risk subpopulation, increasing the frequency of full-body skin exams, and collaborating with primary care physicians to educate them about melanoma’s dangers.”

In a study published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Parisi of Albany Medical College, New York, and colleagues drew from the electronic medical records of a single-specialty private dermatology practice that serves urban, suburban, and rural patient populations to identify 346 melanoma pathology reports from patients cared for between 2012 and 2020. They limited their investigation to those diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed melanoma and analyzed the number of melanomas, Breslow depth, follow-up full-body skin exams, family history of melanoma, gender, insurance, and age (categorized as younger than 70 years and 70 years or older). To determine patient travel distance, they calculated the miles between the ZIP codes of the patient’s residence and the dermatology practice.

Regression analysis revealed that the travel distance of patients and their age were significantly associated with the number of melanomas diagnosed. Specifically, among patients diagnosed with two or more melanomas, 45.0% lived more than 20 miles away and 21.3% lived less than 15 miles away; 59.6% were age 70 and older, while 40.4% were younger than age 70 (P less than .01).

No statistically significant association was observed between travel distance and Breslow depth or follow-up full-body skin exams within 1 year following diagnosis.

In other findings, among patients who lived more than 20 miles from the practice, those aged 70 and older were diagnosed with 0.56 more melanomas than patients between the ages of 58 and 70 (P = .00003), and 0.31 more melanomas than patients who lived 15-20 miles away (P = .014). No statistically significant differences in the number of melanomas diagnosed were observed between patients in either age group who lived fewer than 15 miles from the office.

“We were surprised that the combination of age and patient distance to diagnosing dermatology provider was such a powerful predictor of the number of diagnosed melanomas,” Ms. Parisi said. “It’s probably due to less mobility among older patients living in more remote areas, and it puts them at higher risk of multiple melanomas. This was something we haven’t seen in the dermatology literature.”

She and her coauthors acknowledged that the limited sampling of patients from a single practice “may not generalize across all urban and rural settings, and results must be considered preliminary,” they wrote. However, “our findings reveal an important vulnerability among older patients in nonurban areas, and efforts to improve access to melanoma diagnosis should be concentrated on this geodemographic segment.”

Nikolai Klebanov, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, described what was addressed in the study as a “timely and an important topic.”

In an interview, he said, “there is less access to dermatologists and other medical specialists outside of large metropolitan and suburban areas,” and there are other health disparities affecting people living in rural or more underserved areas, which, he added, “also became exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

For future studies on this topic, Dr. Klebanov said that he would be interested to see diagnoses measured per person-year rather than the total number of melanomas diagnosed. “More elderly patients may also be those who have ‘stuck with the practice’ for longer, and had a longer follow-up that gives more time to catch more melanomas,” he said.

“Adjusting for median income using ZIP codes could also help adjust for socioeconomic status, which would help with external validity of the study. Income relationships to geography are not the same in all cities; some have wealthy suburbs within 20 miles, while some have more underserved and rural areas at that distance.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Klebanov reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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