STOCKHOLM – It remains inconclusive whether SARS-CoV-2 infection predisposes children and adolescents to a higher risk of type 1 diabetes. Data from two new studies and a recently published research letter add to the growing body of knowledge on the subject, but still can’t draw any definitive conclusions.

The latest results from a Norwegian and a Scottish study both examine incidence of type 1 diabetes in young people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and were reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

A 60% increased risk for type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63) was found in the Norwegian study, while in contrast, the Scottish study only found an increased risk in the first few months of the pandemic, in 2020, but importantly, no association over a much longer time period (March 2020–November 2021).

In a comment on Twitter on the two studies presented at EASD, session moderator Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, (England), said: “In summary, two studies showing no or weak association of type 1 diabetes with COVID.”

But new data in the research letter published in JAMA Network Open, based on U.S. figures, also found an almost doubling of type 1 diabetes in children in the first few months after COVID-19 infection relative to infection with other respiratory viruses.

Lead author of the Scottish study, Helen Colhoun, PhD, honorary public health consultant at Public Health Scotland, commented: “Data in children are variable year on year, which emphasizes the need to be cautious over taking a tiny snapshot.”

Nevertheless, this is “a hugely important question and we must not drop the ball. [We must] keep looking at it and maintain scientific equipoise. ... [This] reinforces the need to carry on this analysis into the future to obtain an unequivocal picture,” she emphasized.
 

Norwegian study: If there is an association, the risk is small

German Tapia, PhD, from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, presented the results of a study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent risk of type 1 diabetes in 1.2 million children in Norway.

Of these, 424,354 children had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and there were 990 incident cases of type 1 diabetes.

“What we do know about COVID-19 in children is that the symptoms are mild and only a small proportion are hospitalized with more serious symptoms. But we do not know the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection because this requires a longer follow-up period,” remarked Dr. Tapia, adding that other viral infections are thought to be linked to the development of type 1 diabetes, in particular, respiratory infections.

The data were sourced from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19, which gathers daily data updates including infections (positive and negative results for free-of-charge testing), diagnoses (primary and secondary care), vaccinations (also free of charge), prescribed medications, and basic demographics.

“We link these data using the personal identification number that every Norwegian citizen has,” explained Dr. Tapia.

He presented results from two cohorts: firstly, results in children only, including those tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and secondly, a full national Norwegian population cohort.

Regarding the first cohort, those under 18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, from March 2020 to March 2022, had a significantly increased risk of type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after infection, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.47; P = .02). Adjustments were made for age, sex, non-Nordic country of origin, geographic area, and socioeconomic factors.

For children who developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42), which did not reach statistical significance.

“The fact that fewer people developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days is not surprising because we know that type 1 diabetes develops over a long period of time,” Dr. Tapia said.

“For this reason, we would not expect to find new cases of those people who develop type 1 diabetes within 30 days of COVID-19 infection,” he explained. In these cases, “it is most likely that they already had [type 1 diabetes], and the infection probably triggered clinical symptoms, so their type 1 diabetes was discovered.”

Turning to the full population cohort and diagnoses of type 1 diabetes over 30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Norwegian researchers found an association, with an HR of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.06-2.33; P = .03), while diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at 30 days or less generated a hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42).

“So very similar results were found, and after adjustment for confounders, results were still similar,” reported Dr. Tapia.

He also conducted a similar analysis with vaccination as an exposure but found no association between vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“From these results, we conclude that this suggests an increase in diagnosis of type 1 diabetes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it must be noted that the absolute risk of developing type 1 diabetes after infection in children is low, with most children not developing the disease,” he emphasized. “There are nearly half a million children who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, but only a very small proportion develop type 1 diabetes.”
 

Scottish study: No association found over longer term

Dr. Colhoun and colleagues looked at the relationship between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection in children in Scotland using e-health record linkage.

The study involved 1.8 million people under 35 years of age and found very weak, if any, evidence of an association between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2.

Examining data between March 2020 and November 2021, Dr. Colhoun and colleagues identified 365,080 individuals up to age 35 with at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes.

“In children under 16 years, suspected cases of type 1 diabetes are admitted to hospital, and 97% of diagnosis dates are recorded in the Scottish Care Information – Diabetes Collaboration register [SCI-Diabetes] prior to or within 2 days of the first hospital admission for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Colhoun said, stressing the timeliness of the data.

“We found the incidence of type 1 diabetes diagnosis increased 1.2-fold in those aged 0-14 years, but we did not find any association at an individual level of COVID-19 infection over 30 days prior to a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, in this particular dataset,” she reported. In young people aged 15-34, there was a linear increase in incident type 1 diabetes from 2015 to 2021 with no pandemic increase.

Referring to the 1.2-fold increase soon after the pandemic started, she explained that, in 0- to 14-year-olds, the increase followed a drop in the preceding months prepandemic in 2019. They also found that the seasonal pattern of type 1 diabetes diagnoses remained roughly the same across the pandemic months, with typical peaks in February and September.

In the cohort of under 35s, researchers also found a rate ratio of 2.62 (95% CI, 1.81-3.78) within a 30-day window of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but beyond 30 days, no evidence was seen of an association, with a RR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.62-1.21; P = .40), she reported.

She explained her reasons for not considering diagnoses within 30 days of COVID-19 as causative. Echoing Dr. Tapia, Dr. Colhoun said the median time from symptom onset to diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is 25 days. “This suggests that 50% have had symptoms for over 25 days at diagnosis.”

She also stressed that when they compared the timing of SARS-CoV-2 testing with diagnosis, they found a much higher rate of COVID-19 testing around diagnosis. “This was not least because everyone admitted to hospital had to have a COVID-19 test.”
 

Latest U.S. data point to a link

Meanwhile, for the new data reported in JAMA Network Open, medical student Ellen K. Kendall of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, matched 571,256 pediatric patients: 285,628 with COVID-19 and 285,628 with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections.

By 6 months after COVID-19, 123 patients (0.043%) had received a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, but only 72 (0.025%) were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes within 6 months after non–COVID-19 respiratory infection.

At 1, 3, and 6 months after infection, risk of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was greater among those infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those with non–COVID-19 respiratory infection (1 month: HR, 1.96; 3 months: HR, 2.10; and 6 months: HR, 1.83), and in subgroups of patients aged 0-9 years, a group unlikely to develop type 2 diabetes.

“In this study, new type 1 diabetes diagnoses were more likely to occur among pediatric patients with prior COVID-19 than among those with other respiratory infections (or with other encounters with health systems),” noted Ms. Kendall and coauthors. “Respiratory infections have previously been associated with onset of type 1 diabetes, but this risk was even higher among those with COVID-19 in our study, raising concern for long-term, post–COVID-19 autoimmune complications among youths.”

“The increased risk of new-onset type 1 diabetes after COVID-19 adds an important consideration for risk–benefit discussions for prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pediatric populations,” they concluded.

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in January 2022, also concluded there was a link between COVID-19 and diabetes in children, but not with other acute respiratory infections. Children were 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes following a SARS-CoV-2 infection, it found.

However, the study has been criticized because it pooled all types of diabetes together and did not account for other health conditions, medications that can increase blood glucose levels, race, obesity, and other social determinants of health that might influence a child’s risk of acquiring COVID-19 or diabetes.

“I’ve no doubt that the CDC data were incorrect because the incidence rate for ... diabetes, even in those never exposed to COVID-19 infection, was 10 times the rate ever reported in the U.S.,” Dr. Colhoun said. “There’s no way these data are correct. I believe there was a confusion between incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

“This paper caused a great deal of panic, especially among those who have a child with type 1diabetes, so we need to be very careful not to cause undue alarm until we have more definitive evidence in this arena,” she stressed.

However, she also acknowledged that the new Norwegian study was well conducted, and she has no methodological concerns about it, so “I think we just have to wait and see.”

Given the inconclusiveness on the issue, there is an ongoing CoviDiab registry collecting data on this very subject.

Dr. Tapia presented on behalf of lead author Dr. Gulseth, who has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colhoun also reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – It remains inconclusive whether SARS-CoV-2 infection predisposes children and adolescents to a higher risk of type 1 diabetes. Data from two new studies and a recently published research letter add to the growing body of knowledge on the subject, but still can’t draw any definitive conclusions.

The latest results from a Norwegian and a Scottish study both examine incidence of type 1 diabetes in young people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and were reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

A 60% increased risk for type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63) was found in the Norwegian study, while in contrast, the Scottish study only found an increased risk in the first few months of the pandemic, in 2020, but importantly, no association over a much longer time period (March 2020–November 2021).

In a comment on Twitter on the two studies presented at EASD, session moderator Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, (England), said: “In summary, two studies showing no or weak association of type 1 diabetes with COVID.”

But new data in the research letter published in JAMA Network Open, based on U.S. figures, also found an almost doubling of type 1 diabetes in children in the first few months after COVID-19 infection relative to infection with other respiratory viruses.

Lead author of the Scottish study, Helen Colhoun, PhD, honorary public health consultant at Public Health Scotland, commented: “Data in children are variable year on year, which emphasizes the need to be cautious over taking a tiny snapshot.”

Nevertheless, this is “a hugely important question and we must not drop the ball. [We must] keep looking at it and maintain scientific equipoise. ... [This] reinforces the need to carry on this analysis into the future to obtain an unequivocal picture,” she emphasized.
 

Norwegian study: If there is an association, the risk is small

German Tapia, PhD, from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, presented the results of a study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent risk of type 1 diabetes in 1.2 million children in Norway.

Of these, 424,354 children had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and there were 990 incident cases of type 1 diabetes.

“What we do know about COVID-19 in children is that the symptoms are mild and only a small proportion are hospitalized with more serious symptoms. But we do not know the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection because this requires a longer follow-up period,” remarked Dr. Tapia, adding that other viral infections are thought to be linked to the development of type 1 diabetes, in particular, respiratory infections.

The data were sourced from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19, which gathers daily data updates including infections (positive and negative results for free-of-charge testing), diagnoses (primary and secondary care), vaccinations (also free of charge), prescribed medications, and basic demographics.

“We link these data using the personal identification number that every Norwegian citizen has,” explained Dr. Tapia.

He presented results from two cohorts: firstly, results in children only, including those tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and secondly, a full national Norwegian population cohort.

Regarding the first cohort, those under 18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, from March 2020 to March 2022, had a significantly increased risk of type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after infection, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.47; P = .02). Adjustments were made for age, sex, non-Nordic country of origin, geographic area, and socioeconomic factors.

For children who developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42), which did not reach statistical significance.

“The fact that fewer people developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days is not surprising because we know that type 1 diabetes develops over a long period of time,” Dr. Tapia said.

“For this reason, we would not expect to find new cases of those people who develop type 1 diabetes within 30 days of COVID-19 infection,” he explained. In these cases, “it is most likely that they already had [type 1 diabetes], and the infection probably triggered clinical symptoms, so their type 1 diabetes was discovered.”

Turning to the full population cohort and diagnoses of type 1 diabetes over 30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Norwegian researchers found an association, with an HR of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.06-2.33; P = .03), while diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at 30 days or less generated a hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42).

“So very similar results were found, and after adjustment for confounders, results were still similar,” reported Dr. Tapia.

He also conducted a similar analysis with vaccination as an exposure but found no association between vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“From these results, we conclude that this suggests an increase in diagnosis of type 1 diabetes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it must be noted that the absolute risk of developing type 1 diabetes after infection in children is low, with most children not developing the disease,” he emphasized. “There are nearly half a million children who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, but only a very small proportion develop type 1 diabetes.”
 

Scottish study: No association found over longer term

Dr. Colhoun and colleagues looked at the relationship between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection in children in Scotland using e-health record linkage.

The study involved 1.8 million people under 35 years of age and found very weak, if any, evidence of an association between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2.

Examining data between March 2020 and November 2021, Dr. Colhoun and colleagues identified 365,080 individuals up to age 35 with at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes.

“In children under 16 years, suspected cases of type 1 diabetes are admitted to hospital, and 97% of diagnosis dates are recorded in the Scottish Care Information – Diabetes Collaboration register [SCI-Diabetes] prior to or within 2 days of the first hospital admission for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Colhoun said, stressing the timeliness of the data.

“We found the incidence of type 1 diabetes diagnosis increased 1.2-fold in those aged 0-14 years, but we did not find any association at an individual level of COVID-19 infection over 30 days prior to a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, in this particular dataset,” she reported. In young people aged 15-34, there was a linear increase in incident type 1 diabetes from 2015 to 2021 with no pandemic increase.

Referring to the 1.2-fold increase soon after the pandemic started, she explained that, in 0- to 14-year-olds, the increase followed a drop in the preceding months prepandemic in 2019. They also found that the seasonal pattern of type 1 diabetes diagnoses remained roughly the same across the pandemic months, with typical peaks in February and September.

In the cohort of under 35s, researchers also found a rate ratio of 2.62 (95% CI, 1.81-3.78) within a 30-day window of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but beyond 30 days, no evidence was seen of an association, with a RR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.62-1.21; P = .40), she reported.

She explained her reasons for not considering diagnoses within 30 days of COVID-19 as causative. Echoing Dr. Tapia, Dr. Colhoun said the median time from symptom onset to diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is 25 days. “This suggests that 50% have had symptoms for over 25 days at diagnosis.”

She also stressed that when they compared the timing of SARS-CoV-2 testing with diagnosis, they found a much higher rate of COVID-19 testing around diagnosis. “This was not least because everyone admitted to hospital had to have a COVID-19 test.”
 

Latest U.S. data point to a link

Meanwhile, for the new data reported in JAMA Network Open, medical student Ellen K. Kendall of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, matched 571,256 pediatric patients: 285,628 with COVID-19 and 285,628 with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections.

By 6 months after COVID-19, 123 patients (0.043%) had received a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, but only 72 (0.025%) were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes within 6 months after non–COVID-19 respiratory infection.

At 1, 3, and 6 months after infection, risk of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was greater among those infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those with non–COVID-19 respiratory infection (1 month: HR, 1.96; 3 months: HR, 2.10; and 6 months: HR, 1.83), and in subgroups of patients aged 0-9 years, a group unlikely to develop type 2 diabetes.

“In this study, new type 1 diabetes diagnoses were more likely to occur among pediatric patients with prior COVID-19 than among those with other respiratory infections (or with other encounters with health systems),” noted Ms. Kendall and coauthors. “Respiratory infections have previously been associated with onset of type 1 diabetes, but this risk was even higher among those with COVID-19 in our study, raising concern for long-term, post–COVID-19 autoimmune complications among youths.”

“The increased risk of new-onset type 1 diabetes after COVID-19 adds an important consideration for risk–benefit discussions for prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pediatric populations,” they concluded.

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in January 2022, also concluded there was a link between COVID-19 and diabetes in children, but not with other acute respiratory infections. Children were 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes following a SARS-CoV-2 infection, it found.

However, the study has been criticized because it pooled all types of diabetes together and did not account for other health conditions, medications that can increase blood glucose levels, race, obesity, and other social determinants of health that might influence a child’s risk of acquiring COVID-19 or diabetes.

“I’ve no doubt that the CDC data were incorrect because the incidence rate for ... diabetes, even in those never exposed to COVID-19 infection, was 10 times the rate ever reported in the U.S.,” Dr. Colhoun said. “There’s no way these data are correct. I believe there was a confusion between incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

“This paper caused a great deal of panic, especially among those who have a child with type 1diabetes, so we need to be very careful not to cause undue alarm until we have more definitive evidence in this arena,” she stressed.

However, she also acknowledged that the new Norwegian study was well conducted, and she has no methodological concerns about it, so “I think we just have to wait and see.”

Given the inconclusiveness on the issue, there is an ongoing CoviDiab registry collecting data on this very subject.

Dr. Tapia presented on behalf of lead author Dr. Gulseth, who has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colhoun also reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – It remains inconclusive whether SARS-CoV-2 infection predisposes children and adolescents to a higher risk of type 1 diabetes. Data from two new studies and a recently published research letter add to the growing body of knowledge on the subject, but still can’t draw any definitive conclusions.

The latest results from a Norwegian and a Scottish study both examine incidence of type 1 diabetes in young people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and were reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

A 60% increased risk for type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63) was found in the Norwegian study, while in contrast, the Scottish study only found an increased risk in the first few months of the pandemic, in 2020, but importantly, no association over a much longer time period (March 2020–November 2021).

In a comment on Twitter on the two studies presented at EASD, session moderator Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, (England), said: “In summary, two studies showing no or weak association of type 1 diabetes with COVID.”

But new data in the research letter published in JAMA Network Open, based on U.S. figures, also found an almost doubling of type 1 diabetes in children in the first few months after COVID-19 infection relative to infection with other respiratory viruses.

Lead author of the Scottish study, Helen Colhoun, PhD, honorary public health consultant at Public Health Scotland, commented: “Data in children are variable year on year, which emphasizes the need to be cautious over taking a tiny snapshot.”

Nevertheless, this is “a hugely important question and we must not drop the ball. [We must] keep looking at it and maintain scientific equipoise. ... [This] reinforces the need to carry on this analysis into the future to obtain an unequivocal picture,” she emphasized.
 

Norwegian study: If there is an association, the risk is small

German Tapia, PhD, from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, presented the results of a study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent risk of type 1 diabetes in 1.2 million children in Norway.

Of these, 424,354 children had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and there were 990 incident cases of type 1 diabetes.

“What we do know about COVID-19 in children is that the symptoms are mild and only a small proportion are hospitalized with more serious symptoms. But we do not know the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection because this requires a longer follow-up period,” remarked Dr. Tapia, adding that other viral infections are thought to be linked to the development of type 1 diabetes, in particular, respiratory infections.

The data were sourced from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19, which gathers daily data updates including infections (positive and negative results for free-of-charge testing), diagnoses (primary and secondary care), vaccinations (also free of charge), prescribed medications, and basic demographics.

“We link these data using the personal identification number that every Norwegian citizen has,” explained Dr. Tapia.

He presented results from two cohorts: firstly, results in children only, including those tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and secondly, a full national Norwegian population cohort.

Regarding the first cohort, those under 18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, from March 2020 to March 2022, had a significantly increased risk of type 1 diabetes at least 31 days after infection, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.47; P = .02). Adjustments were made for age, sex, non-Nordic country of origin, geographic area, and socioeconomic factors.

For children who developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, the HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42), which did not reach statistical significance.

“The fact that fewer people developed type 1 diabetes within 30 days is not surprising because we know that type 1 diabetes develops over a long period of time,” Dr. Tapia said.

“For this reason, we would not expect to find new cases of those people who develop type 1 diabetes within 30 days of COVID-19 infection,” he explained. In these cases, “it is most likely that they already had [type 1 diabetes], and the infection probably triggered clinical symptoms, so their type 1 diabetes was discovered.”

Turning to the full population cohort and diagnoses of type 1 diabetes over 30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Norwegian researchers found an association, with an HR of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.06-2.33; P = .03), while diagnosis of type 1 diabetes at 30 days or less generated a hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.72-2.19; P = .42).

“So very similar results were found, and after adjustment for confounders, results were still similar,” reported Dr. Tapia.

He also conducted a similar analysis with vaccination as an exposure but found no association between vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“From these results, we conclude that this suggests an increase in diagnosis of type 1 diabetes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it must be noted that the absolute risk of developing type 1 diabetes after infection in children is low, with most children not developing the disease,” he emphasized. “There are nearly half a million children who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, but only a very small proportion develop type 1 diabetes.”
 

Scottish study: No association found over longer term

Dr. Colhoun and colleagues looked at the relationship between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection in children in Scotland using e-health record linkage.

The study involved 1.8 million people under 35 years of age and found very weak, if any, evidence of an association between incident type 1 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2.

Examining data between March 2020 and November 2021, Dr. Colhoun and colleagues identified 365,080 individuals up to age 35 with at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes.

“In children under 16 years, suspected cases of type 1 diabetes are admitted to hospital, and 97% of diagnosis dates are recorded in the Scottish Care Information – Diabetes Collaboration register [SCI-Diabetes] prior to or within 2 days of the first hospital admission for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Colhoun said, stressing the timeliness of the data.

“We found the incidence of type 1 diabetes diagnosis increased 1.2-fold in those aged 0-14 years, but we did not find any association at an individual level of COVID-19 infection over 30 days prior to a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, in this particular dataset,” she reported. In young people aged 15-34, there was a linear increase in incident type 1 diabetes from 2015 to 2021 with no pandemic increase.

Referring to the 1.2-fold increase soon after the pandemic started, she explained that, in 0- to 14-year-olds, the increase followed a drop in the preceding months prepandemic in 2019. They also found that the seasonal pattern of type 1 diabetes diagnoses remained roughly the same across the pandemic months, with typical peaks in February and September.

In the cohort of under 35s, researchers also found a rate ratio of 2.62 (95% CI, 1.81-3.78) within a 30-day window of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but beyond 30 days, no evidence was seen of an association, with a RR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.62-1.21; P = .40), she reported.

She explained her reasons for not considering diagnoses within 30 days of COVID-19 as causative. Echoing Dr. Tapia, Dr. Colhoun said the median time from symptom onset to diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is 25 days. “This suggests that 50% have had symptoms for over 25 days at diagnosis.”

She also stressed that when they compared the timing of SARS-CoV-2 testing with diagnosis, they found a much higher rate of COVID-19 testing around diagnosis. “This was not least because everyone admitted to hospital had to have a COVID-19 test.”
 

Latest U.S. data point to a link

Meanwhile, for the new data reported in JAMA Network Open, medical student Ellen K. Kendall of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, matched 571,256 pediatric patients: 285,628 with COVID-19 and 285,628 with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections.

By 6 months after COVID-19, 123 patients (0.043%) had received a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, but only 72 (0.025%) were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes within 6 months after non–COVID-19 respiratory infection.

At 1, 3, and 6 months after infection, risk of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was greater among those infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those with non–COVID-19 respiratory infection (1 month: HR, 1.96; 3 months: HR, 2.10; and 6 months: HR, 1.83), and in subgroups of patients aged 0-9 years, a group unlikely to develop type 2 diabetes.

“In this study, new type 1 diabetes diagnoses were more likely to occur among pediatric patients with prior COVID-19 than among those with other respiratory infections (or with other encounters with health systems),” noted Ms. Kendall and coauthors. “Respiratory infections have previously been associated with onset of type 1 diabetes, but this risk was even higher among those with COVID-19 in our study, raising concern for long-term, post–COVID-19 autoimmune complications among youths.”

“The increased risk of new-onset type 1 diabetes after COVID-19 adds an important consideration for risk–benefit discussions for prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pediatric populations,” they concluded.

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in January 2022, also concluded there was a link between COVID-19 and diabetes in children, but not with other acute respiratory infections. Children were 2.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes following a SARS-CoV-2 infection, it found.

However, the study has been criticized because it pooled all types of diabetes together and did not account for other health conditions, medications that can increase blood glucose levels, race, obesity, and other social determinants of health that might influence a child’s risk of acquiring COVID-19 or diabetes.

“I’ve no doubt that the CDC data were incorrect because the incidence rate for ... diabetes, even in those never exposed to COVID-19 infection, was 10 times the rate ever reported in the U.S.,” Dr. Colhoun said. “There’s no way these data are correct. I believe there was a confusion between incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

“This paper caused a great deal of panic, especially among those who have a child with type 1diabetes, so we need to be very careful not to cause undue alarm until we have more definitive evidence in this arena,” she stressed.

However, she also acknowledged that the new Norwegian study was well conducted, and she has no methodological concerns about it, so “I think we just have to wait and see.”

Given the inconclusiveness on the issue, there is an ongoing CoviDiab registry collecting data on this very subject.

Dr. Tapia presented on behalf of lead author Dr. Gulseth, who has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Colhoun also reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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