Infectious Disease Practitioner

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.

Skin microbiome therapy to protect against Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) proved safe in a phase 1 randomized clinical trial that also demonstrated “encouraging clinical and mechanistic results,” Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, and his coinvestigators have reported in Nature Medicine.

Findings from the 1-week, 54-patient trial of a topical formulation containing Staphylococcus hominis A9 (ShA9) offer evidence that the strain directly kills S. aureus, inhibits the production of S. aureus–generated toxins, and enables expansion of a healthy bacterial community, “allowing the rest of the microbiome to start to recover to normal,” Dr. Gallo, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“And perhaps most exciting,” Dr. Gallo added, is the finding that the subset of patients with AD who were most responsive to the ShA9 compound – approximately two-thirds of the participants who were randomized to receive it – showed improvement in local EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) and SCORAD (Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) scores used to assess inflammation. Plans are underway for a larger and longer trial, he said.

S. aureus commonly colonizes patients with AD and exacerbates disease by causing inflammation. In recent years, Dr. Gallo and other investigators have come to believe that AD is a cyclic disease in which the skin’s microbiome affects the host, and the host affects the microbiome. The goal of bacteriotherapy is to break the cycle of S. aureus colonization and improve the skin immune and barrier dysfunction characteristics of AD, Dr. Gallo said.

ShA9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, was chosen as a potential topical therapy for AD based on its capacity both to selectively kill S. aureus and to inhibit toxin production by S. aureus. Dr. Gallo’s team’s preclinical work involved screening thousands of isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci for gene products that perform these two functions by expressing both antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and autoinducing peptides (AIPs), the latter of which inhibit the S. aureus quorum-sending system that leads to toxin production. Most patients with AD lack protective strains of coagulase-negative staphylococci, including S. hominis, prior research has found.

The double-blind phase 1 trial randomized 54 adults with moderate-severe AD affecting the ventral forearms in a 2:1 fashion to receive the proprietary lyophilized preparation of ShA9 or an ShA9-free formulation twice daily for 1 week. All participants were culture positive for S. aureus.

Clinical assessments and skin swabs were obtained before and within an hour after the first application of day 1, and swabs were collected on days 4 and 7 within 4 hours of the first application.

Blinded physician assessments and skin swabs were also obtained at 24, 48, and 96 hours after the final dose on day 7.

Based on structured daily diaries, there were no serious adverse events, and significantly fewer adverse events in those treated with ShA9, compared with the vehicle alone; 55.6% versus 83.3%, respectively, were considered to have adverse events.

The adverse event–reporting system captured the normal fluctuation of eczema and considered any report of fluctuation above baseline to be an adverse event. “Patients treated with the [placebo formulation] had the expected high frequency of itching, burning, and pain that you see with AD but it was encouraging that the frequency of reporting these events was significantly less in those treated with the active [formulation],” Dr. Gallo said in the interview.

Their report describes a decrease in S. aureus in participants treated with ShA9, and increases in ShA9 DNA. Not all S. aureus strains were directly killed by ShA9, but all strains had reduced expression of mRNA for psm-alpha, an important virulence factor. That reduced expression correlated with ShA9 AIPs and improved EASI scores, the latter of which was observed in a post-hoc analysis. “Participants with S. aureus not killed by ShA9 were still sensitive to inhibition of toxin production, a mechanistic outcome that predicted clinical improvement in mice and may require longer therapy to observe clinical improvement in humans,” the investigators wrote.

Local eczema severity was not significantly different between the bacteriotherapy and control groups. But the post-hoc analysis showed that after 7 days of treatment, and up to 4 days after treatment was discontinued, the patients with S. aureus that was sensitive to killing by ShA9 (21 out of 35 total who received the bacteriotherapy) showed improvement in EASI and SCORAD scores, compared with control patients.

Future research will assess the compound in both S. aureus culture-positive and culture-negative patients, and in patients with mild disease, Dr. Gallo said.

The trial was conducted at USCD and the National Jewish Health General Clinical Research Center in Denver, and was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The ShA9 formulation and related technology are licensed to MatriSys Bioscience, of which Dr. Gallo is the cofounder and an advisory board member. Dr. Gallo holds equity interest in the company.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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