In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

About 87% of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past 5 years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association, said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says: ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to reengage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said: “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

Potential for harm?

Sadeea Abbasi, MD, a practicing physician at Cedars-Sinai in the gastroenterology clinical office in Santa Monica, Calif., can attest that these practices are harmful for her patients.

“Prior authorization requirements have been on the rise across various medical specialties. For GI, we have seen an increase of required approvals for procedures like upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and wireless capsule endoscopy and in medications prescribed, including biologic infusions for inflammatory bowel disease.”

Dr. Abbasi added: “One of the largest concerns I have with this growing ‘cost-savings’ trend is the impact it has on clinical outcomes. I have seen patients suffer with symptoms while waiting for a decision on a prior authorization for a medication. My patients have endured confusion and chaos when arriving for imaging appointments, only to learn the insurance has not reached a decision on whether the study is approved. When patients learn their procedure has been delayed, they have to reschedule the appointment, take another day off work, coordinate transportation and most importantly, postpone subsequent treatments to alleviate symptoms.”

According to an AMA survey, almost all physicians (94%) said prior authorization delays care and 79% percent have had patients abandon their recommended treatment because of issues related to prior authorization. This delay causes potentially irreversible damage to patients’ digestive system and increases the likelihood of hospitalization. This is a huge issue for America’s seniors: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which represent 24.1 million of the 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, the increase in prior authorization requests has been substantial.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA and nearly 300 other stakeholders, including the American Gastroenterological Association, support the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173). The legislation includes a provision related to “gold carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill aims to establish transparency requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to MA plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Ensuring prior authorization requests are reviewed by qualified medical personnel.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

This legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), after which it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Ways and Means for consideration.

Gaining support for this legislation is a priority for AGA and as such the legislation will be featured as a top policy request at AGA’s upcoming fall Advocacy Day on Sept. 23. The AGA encourages all physicians to contact their lawmakers, urging for support of the bill in the 117th Congress.

In addition to AGA’s advocacy efforts on prior authorization reform, the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of national physician specialty organizations, advocates for regulatory burden reduction in Medicare so that physicians can spend more time treating patients. The physician community has banded together to address prior authorization burdens in our field and improve delivery of patient care. Learn more about prior authorization burdens and the various advocacy efforts being pursued.

With additional reporting by staff from this news organization.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for use in children with type 2 diabetes down to 10 years of age, the agency announced July 22.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Previously approved in adults, the injectable is now the second glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for use in pediatric type 2 diabetes, after liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019, and the first with once-weekly administration.

The two extended-release Bydureon products – which differ in delivery device and mixing procedure – are now indicated for use in addition to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in pediatric patients 10 years of age or older with type 2 diabetes.

Exenatide extended release is not recommended as first-line treatment following diet and exercise.

The approval was based on a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 82 children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older. They were randomized to 2 mg once-weekly exenatide extended release or placebo. At week 24, hemoglobin A1c in those randomized to the drug had dropped by 0.25 percentage points, compared with a 0.45 percentage point increase in the placebo group.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults, including injection site reactions, headaches, and gastrointestinal discomfort.

Currently, metformin is the only oral medication approved for treating pediatric type 2 diabetes, while the injectables also include insulin in addition to the two GLP-1 receptor agonists. During a symposium held in June 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, speakers expressed alarm about the rise in youth developing type 2 diabetes, noting that the condition typically progresses more rapidly and is less likely to respond well to metformin, compared with adults.

But, the panelists were also optimistic about extended-release exenatide as well as several other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes in ongoing phase 3 trials, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors alogliptin and linagliptin. Results are expected in the next 1-2 years.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for use in children with type 2 diabetes down to 10 years of age, the agency announced July 22.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Previously approved in adults, the injectable is now the second glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for use in pediatric type 2 diabetes, after liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019, and the first with once-weekly administration.

The two extended-release Bydureon products – which differ in delivery device and mixing procedure – are now indicated for use in addition to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in pediatric patients 10 years of age or older with type 2 diabetes.

Exenatide extended release is not recommended as first-line treatment following diet and exercise.

The approval was based on a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 82 children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older. They were randomized to 2 mg once-weekly exenatide extended release or placebo. At week 24, hemoglobin A1c in those randomized to the drug had dropped by 0.25 percentage points, compared with a 0.45 percentage point increase in the placebo group.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults, including injection site reactions, headaches, and gastrointestinal discomfort.

Currently, metformin is the only oral medication approved for treating pediatric type 2 diabetes, while the injectables also include insulin in addition to the two GLP-1 receptor agonists. During a symposium held in June 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, speakers expressed alarm about the rise in youth developing type 2 diabetes, noting that the condition typically progresses more rapidly and is less likely to respond well to metformin, compared with adults.

But, the panelists were also optimistic about extended-release exenatide as well as several other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes in ongoing phase 3 trials, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors alogliptin and linagliptin. Results are expected in the next 1-2 years.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for use in children with type 2 diabetes down to 10 years of age, the agency announced July 22.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Previously approved in adults, the injectable is now the second glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for use in pediatric type 2 diabetes, after liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019, and the first with once-weekly administration.

The two extended-release Bydureon products – which differ in delivery device and mixing procedure – are now indicated for use in addition to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in pediatric patients 10 years of age or older with type 2 diabetes.

Exenatide extended release is not recommended as first-line treatment following diet and exercise.

The approval was based on a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 82 children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older. They were randomized to 2 mg once-weekly exenatide extended release or placebo. At week 24, hemoglobin A1c in those randomized to the drug had dropped by 0.25 percentage points, compared with a 0.45 percentage point increase in the placebo group.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults, including injection site reactions, headaches, and gastrointestinal discomfort.

Currently, metformin is the only oral medication approved for treating pediatric type 2 diabetes, while the injectables also include insulin in addition to the two GLP-1 receptor agonists. During a symposium held in June 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, speakers expressed alarm about the rise in youth developing type 2 diabetes, noting that the condition typically progresses more rapidly and is less likely to respond well to metformin, compared with adults.

But, the panelists were also optimistic about extended-release exenatide as well as several other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes in ongoing phase 3 trials, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors alogliptin and linagliptin. Results are expected in the next 1-2 years.

Patients with a mental illness, particularly a psychotic or mood disorder, are twice as likely to die after infection with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those without a psychiatric diagnosis, according to the results of the largest study of its kind to date.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need to prioritize vaccination in patients with preexisting mental health disorders.

“We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are increased risks” among psychiatric patients who get COVID-19, study investigator Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and postdoctoral researcher, University Psychiatric Hospital Campus Duffel and University of Antwerp (Belgium), told this news organization.

“Doctors need to look at these patients the same way they would other high-risk people, for example those with diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” all of whom should be protected against COVID-19, Dr. De Picker added.

The study was published online July 15, 2021, in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Risk by mental illness type

The systematic review included 33 studies from 22 countries that reported risk estimates for mortality, hospitalization, and ICU admission in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The meta-analysis included 23 of these studies with a total of 1.47 million participants. Of these, 43,938 had a psychiatric disorder.

The primary outcome was mortality after COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization and ICU admission after COVID-19. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, and other covariates.

Results showed the presence of any comorbid mental illness was associated with an increased risk for death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.54; P < .0001).

When researchers stratified mortality risk by psychiatric disorder type, the most robust associations were for psychotic and mood disorders. Substance use disorders, intellectual disabilities, and developmental disorders were associated with higher mortality only in crude estimates. There was no increased death risk associated with anxiety disorders.

“That there are differences between the various types of disorders was an interesting finding,” said Dr. De Picker, adding that previous research “just lumped together all diagnostic categories.”
 

Potential mechanisms

The study did not explore why psychiatric illness raise the risk for death in the setting of COVID-19, so potential mechanisms are purely speculative. However, the investigators believe it may reflect biological processes such as immune-inflammatory alterations.

Psychotic disorders and mood disorders in particular, are associated with immune changes, including immunogenetic abnormalities, raised cytokine concentrations, autoantibodies, acute-phase proteins, and aberrant counts of leukocyte cell types, said Dr. De Picker.

She likened this to elderly people being at increased risk following COVID-19 because their immune system is compromised and less able to fight infection.

There are likely other factors at play, said Dr. De Picker. These could include social isolation and lifestyle factors like poor diet, physical inactivity, high alcohol and tobacco use, and sleep disturbances.

In addition, psychiatric patients have a higher prevalence of comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease, which could also play a role.

The increased mortality might also reflect reduced access to care. “Some of these patients may be living in difficult socioeconomic conditions,” said Dr. De Picker.

She noted that, while the in-hospital mortality was not increased, the risk was significantly increased in samples that were outside of the hospital. This reinforces the need for providing close monitoring and early referral to hospital for psychiatric patients with COVID-19.

Mortality varied significantly among countries, with the lowest risk in Europe and the United States. This difference might be attributable to differences in health care systems and access to care, said Dr. De Picker.

Overall, the risk for hospitalization was about double for COVID patients with a mental illness, but when stratified by disorder, there was only a significantly increased risk for substance use and mood disorders. “But mood disorders were not even significant any more after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, and we don’t see an increased risk for psychotic disorders whereas they had the highest mortality risks,” said Dr. De Picker.
 

Psych meds a risk factor?

The studies were primarily based on electronic medical records, so investigators were unable to carry out “a fine grain analysis” into clinical factors affecting outcomes, she noted.

Antipsychotics were consistently associated with an increased risk for mortality (adjusted OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.81-3.25), as were anxiolytics (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.15-1.88).

“There are some theoretical reasons why we believe there could be a risk associated with these drugs,” said Dr. De Picker. For example, antipsychotics can increase the risk for cardiac arrhythmias and thromboembolic events, and cause interactions with drugs used to treat COVID-19.

As for anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines, these drugs are associated with respiratory risk and with all-cause mortality. “So you could imagine that someone who is infected with a respiratory virus and [is] then using these drugs on top of that would have a worse outcome,” said Dr. De Picker.

In contrast to antipsychotics and anxiolytics, antidepressants did not increase mortality risk.

Dr. De Picker noted a new study by French researchers showing a protective effect of certain serotonergic antidepressants on COVID outcomes, including mortality.

There was no robust evidence of an increased risk for ICU admission for patients with mental disorders. However, the authors noted some studies included small samples of patients with psychiatric disorders, “contributing to a low certainty of evidence for ICU admission.”

Dr. De Picker criticized COVID vaccine policies that don’t prioritize patients with psychiatric disorders. In many countries, groups that were initially green-lighted for the vaccine included health care workers, the elderly, and those with underlying conditions such as diabetes, obesity and even mild hypertension – but not mental illness, which is also an underlying risk.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Research, called it “outstanding” and the largest of its kind.

“There have been a number of studies that have come to similar conclusions, that people with psychiatric illness are at greater risk for poorer outcomes, but because any given study had a relatively limited sample, perhaps from one health system or one country, there were some inconsistencies,” said Dr. Alpert.

“This is the strongest report so far that has made the point that people with psychiatric illness are a vulnerable population for a negative outcome from COVID, including the most worrisome – mortality.”

The study helps drive home a “very important public health lesson” that applies to COVID-19 but goes “beyond,” said Dr. Alpert.

“As a society, we need to keep in mind that people with serious mental disorders are a vulnerable population for poorer outcomes in most general medical conditions,” he stressed, “whether it’s cancer or heart disease or diabetes, and special efforts need to be made to reach out to those populations.”

Dr. Alpert agreed that, at the start of the pandemic, psychiatric patients in the United States were not prioritized for vaccination, and although psychiatric patients may initially have found it difficult to navigate the health care system to learn where and how to get a COVID shot, today that barrier has mostly been removed.

“Our patients are at least as willing as any other subgroup to get the vaccine, and that includes people with psychotic disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry network and Fondazione Centro San Raffaele (Milan). Dr. De Picker reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen outside the submitted work. She is a member of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry Thematic Working Group.

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

Patients with a mental illness, particularly a psychotic or mood disorder, are twice as likely to die after infection with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those without a psychiatric diagnosis, according to the results of the largest study of its kind to date.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need to prioritize vaccination in patients with preexisting mental health disorders.

“We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are increased risks” among psychiatric patients who get COVID-19, study investigator Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and postdoctoral researcher, University Psychiatric Hospital Campus Duffel and University of Antwerp (Belgium), told this news organization.

“Doctors need to look at these patients the same way they would other high-risk people, for example those with diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” all of whom should be protected against COVID-19, Dr. De Picker added.

The study was published online July 15, 2021, in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Risk by mental illness type

The systematic review included 33 studies from 22 countries that reported risk estimates for mortality, hospitalization, and ICU admission in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The meta-analysis included 23 of these studies with a total of 1.47 million participants. Of these, 43,938 had a psychiatric disorder.

The primary outcome was mortality after COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization and ICU admission after COVID-19. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, and other covariates.

Results showed the presence of any comorbid mental illness was associated with an increased risk for death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.54; P < .0001).

When researchers stratified mortality risk by psychiatric disorder type, the most robust associations were for psychotic and mood disorders. Substance use disorders, intellectual disabilities, and developmental disorders were associated with higher mortality only in crude estimates. There was no increased death risk associated with anxiety disorders.

“That there are differences between the various types of disorders was an interesting finding,” said Dr. De Picker, adding that previous research “just lumped together all diagnostic categories.”
 

Potential mechanisms

The study did not explore why psychiatric illness raise the risk for death in the setting of COVID-19, so potential mechanisms are purely speculative. However, the investigators believe it may reflect biological processes such as immune-inflammatory alterations.

Psychotic disorders and mood disorders in particular, are associated with immune changes, including immunogenetic abnormalities, raised cytokine concentrations, autoantibodies, acute-phase proteins, and aberrant counts of leukocyte cell types, said Dr. De Picker.

She likened this to elderly people being at increased risk following COVID-19 because their immune system is compromised and less able to fight infection.

There are likely other factors at play, said Dr. De Picker. These could include social isolation and lifestyle factors like poor diet, physical inactivity, high alcohol and tobacco use, and sleep disturbances.

In addition, psychiatric patients have a higher prevalence of comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease, which could also play a role.

The increased mortality might also reflect reduced access to care. “Some of these patients may be living in difficult socioeconomic conditions,” said Dr. De Picker.

She noted that, while the in-hospital mortality was not increased, the risk was significantly increased in samples that were outside of the hospital. This reinforces the need for providing close monitoring and early referral to hospital for psychiatric patients with COVID-19.

Mortality varied significantly among countries, with the lowest risk in Europe and the United States. This difference might be attributable to differences in health care systems and access to care, said Dr. De Picker.

Overall, the risk for hospitalization was about double for COVID patients with a mental illness, but when stratified by disorder, there was only a significantly increased risk for substance use and mood disorders. “But mood disorders were not even significant any more after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, and we don’t see an increased risk for psychotic disorders whereas they had the highest mortality risks,” said Dr. De Picker.
 

Psych meds a risk factor?

The studies were primarily based on electronic medical records, so investigators were unable to carry out “a fine grain analysis” into clinical factors affecting outcomes, she noted.

Antipsychotics were consistently associated with an increased risk for mortality (adjusted OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.81-3.25), as were anxiolytics (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.15-1.88).

“There are some theoretical reasons why we believe there could be a risk associated with these drugs,” said Dr. De Picker. For example, antipsychotics can increase the risk for cardiac arrhythmias and thromboembolic events, and cause interactions with drugs used to treat COVID-19.

As for anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines, these drugs are associated with respiratory risk and with all-cause mortality. “So you could imagine that someone who is infected with a respiratory virus and [is] then using these drugs on top of that would have a worse outcome,” said Dr. De Picker.

In contrast to antipsychotics and anxiolytics, antidepressants did not increase mortality risk.

Dr. De Picker noted a new study by French researchers showing a protective effect of certain serotonergic antidepressants on COVID outcomes, including mortality.

There was no robust evidence of an increased risk for ICU admission for patients with mental disorders. However, the authors noted some studies included small samples of patients with psychiatric disorders, “contributing to a low certainty of evidence for ICU admission.”

Dr. De Picker criticized COVID vaccine policies that don’t prioritize patients with psychiatric disorders. In many countries, groups that were initially green-lighted for the vaccine included health care workers, the elderly, and those with underlying conditions such as diabetes, obesity and even mild hypertension – but not mental illness, which is also an underlying risk.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Research, called it “outstanding” and the largest of its kind.

“There have been a number of studies that have come to similar conclusions, that people with psychiatric illness are at greater risk for poorer outcomes, but because any given study had a relatively limited sample, perhaps from one health system or one country, there were some inconsistencies,” said Dr. Alpert.

“This is the strongest report so far that has made the point that people with psychiatric illness are a vulnerable population for a negative outcome from COVID, including the most worrisome – mortality.”

The study helps drive home a “very important public health lesson” that applies to COVID-19 but goes “beyond,” said Dr. Alpert.

“As a society, we need to keep in mind that people with serious mental disorders are a vulnerable population for poorer outcomes in most general medical conditions,” he stressed, “whether it’s cancer or heart disease or diabetes, and special efforts need to be made to reach out to those populations.”

Dr. Alpert agreed that, at the start of the pandemic, psychiatric patients in the United States were not prioritized for vaccination, and although psychiatric patients may initially have found it difficult to navigate the health care system to learn where and how to get a COVID shot, today that barrier has mostly been removed.

“Our patients are at least as willing as any other subgroup to get the vaccine, and that includes people with psychotic disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry network and Fondazione Centro San Raffaele (Milan). Dr. De Picker reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen outside the submitted work. She is a member of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry Thematic Working Group.

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

Patients with a mental illness, particularly a psychotic or mood disorder, are twice as likely to die after infection with SARS-CoV-2, compared with those without a psychiatric diagnosis, according to the results of the largest study of its kind to date.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need to prioritize vaccination in patients with preexisting mental health disorders.

“We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are increased risks” among psychiatric patients who get COVID-19, study investigator Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and postdoctoral researcher, University Psychiatric Hospital Campus Duffel and University of Antwerp (Belgium), told this news organization.

“Doctors need to look at these patients the same way they would other high-risk people, for example those with diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” all of whom should be protected against COVID-19, Dr. De Picker added.

The study was published online July 15, 2021, in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Risk by mental illness type

The systematic review included 33 studies from 22 countries that reported risk estimates for mortality, hospitalization, and ICU admission in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The meta-analysis included 23 of these studies with a total of 1.47 million participants. Of these, 43,938 had a psychiatric disorder.

The primary outcome was mortality after COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization and ICU admission after COVID-19. Researchers adjusted for age, sex, and other covariates.

Results showed the presence of any comorbid mental illness was associated with an increased risk for death after SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.54; P < .0001).

When researchers stratified mortality risk by psychiatric disorder type, the most robust associations were for psychotic and mood disorders. Substance use disorders, intellectual disabilities, and developmental disorders were associated with higher mortality only in crude estimates. There was no increased death risk associated with anxiety disorders.

“That there are differences between the various types of disorders was an interesting finding,” said Dr. De Picker, adding that previous research “just lumped together all diagnostic categories.”
 

Potential mechanisms

The study did not explore why psychiatric illness raise the risk for death in the setting of COVID-19, so potential mechanisms are purely speculative. However, the investigators believe it may reflect biological processes such as immune-inflammatory alterations.

Psychotic disorders and mood disorders in particular, are associated with immune changes, including immunogenetic abnormalities, raised cytokine concentrations, autoantibodies, acute-phase proteins, and aberrant counts of leukocyte cell types, said Dr. De Picker.

She likened this to elderly people being at increased risk following COVID-19 because their immune system is compromised and less able to fight infection.

There are likely other factors at play, said Dr. De Picker. These could include social isolation and lifestyle factors like poor diet, physical inactivity, high alcohol and tobacco use, and sleep disturbances.

In addition, psychiatric patients have a higher prevalence of comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease, which could also play a role.

The increased mortality might also reflect reduced access to care. “Some of these patients may be living in difficult socioeconomic conditions,” said Dr. De Picker.

She noted that, while the in-hospital mortality was not increased, the risk was significantly increased in samples that were outside of the hospital. This reinforces the need for providing close monitoring and early referral to hospital for psychiatric patients with COVID-19.

Mortality varied significantly among countries, with the lowest risk in Europe and the United States. This difference might be attributable to differences in health care systems and access to care, said Dr. De Picker.

Overall, the risk for hospitalization was about double for COVID patients with a mental illness, but when stratified by disorder, there was only a significantly increased risk for substance use and mood disorders. “But mood disorders were not even significant any more after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, and we don’t see an increased risk for psychotic disorders whereas they had the highest mortality risks,” said Dr. De Picker.
 

Psych meds a risk factor?

The studies were primarily based on electronic medical records, so investigators were unable to carry out “a fine grain analysis” into clinical factors affecting outcomes, she noted.

Antipsychotics were consistently associated with an increased risk for mortality (adjusted OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.81-3.25), as were anxiolytics (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.15-1.88).

“There are some theoretical reasons why we believe there could be a risk associated with these drugs,” said Dr. De Picker. For example, antipsychotics can increase the risk for cardiac arrhythmias and thromboembolic events, and cause interactions with drugs used to treat COVID-19.

As for anxiolytics, especially benzodiazepines, these drugs are associated with respiratory risk and with all-cause mortality. “So you could imagine that someone who is infected with a respiratory virus and [is] then using these drugs on top of that would have a worse outcome,” said Dr. De Picker.

In contrast to antipsychotics and anxiolytics, antidepressants did not increase mortality risk.

Dr. De Picker noted a new study by French researchers showing a protective effect of certain serotonergic antidepressants on COVID outcomes, including mortality.

There was no robust evidence of an increased risk for ICU admission for patients with mental disorders. However, the authors noted some studies included small samples of patients with psychiatric disorders, “contributing to a low certainty of evidence for ICU admission.”

Dr. De Picker criticized COVID vaccine policies that don’t prioritize patients with psychiatric disorders. In many countries, groups that were initially green-lighted for the vaccine included health care workers, the elderly, and those with underlying conditions such as diabetes, obesity and even mild hypertension – but not mental illness, which is also an underlying risk.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Research, called it “outstanding” and the largest of its kind.

“There have been a number of studies that have come to similar conclusions, that people with psychiatric illness are at greater risk for poorer outcomes, but because any given study had a relatively limited sample, perhaps from one health system or one country, there were some inconsistencies,” said Dr. Alpert.

“This is the strongest report so far that has made the point that people with psychiatric illness are a vulnerable population for a negative outcome from COVID, including the most worrisome – mortality.”

The study helps drive home a “very important public health lesson” that applies to COVID-19 but goes “beyond,” said Dr. Alpert.

“As a society, we need to keep in mind that people with serious mental disorders are a vulnerable population for poorer outcomes in most general medical conditions,” he stressed, “whether it’s cancer or heart disease or diabetes, and special efforts need to be made to reach out to those populations.”

Dr. Alpert agreed that, at the start of the pandemic, psychiatric patients in the United States were not prioritized for vaccination, and although psychiatric patients may initially have found it difficult to navigate the health care system to learn where and how to get a COVID shot, today that barrier has mostly been removed.

“Our patients are at least as willing as any other subgroup to get the vaccine, and that includes people with psychotic disorders,” he said.

The study was supported by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry network and Fondazione Centro San Raffaele (Milan). Dr. De Picker reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen outside the submitted work. She is a member of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Immuno-NeuroPsychiatry Thematic Working Group.

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

On July 22, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines to reflect current screening, testing, and treatment recommendations. The guidelines were last updated in 2015.

The new recommendations come at a pivotal moment in the field’s history, Kimberly Workowski, MD, a medical officer at the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, told this news organization in an email. “The COVID-19 pandemic has caused decreased clinic capacity and drug and diagnostic test kit shortages,” she says. Many of these shortages have been resolved, she added, and it is important that health care professionals use the most current evidence-based recommendations for screening and management of STIs.

Updates to these guidelines were necessary to reflect “continued advances in research in the prevention of STIs, new interventions in terms of STI prevention, and thirdly, changing epidemiology,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, an STI specialist with the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There’s been increased concern about antimicrobial resistance, and that’s really driven some of the key changes in these new STI treatment guidelines.”

Notable updates to the guidelines include the following:

• Updated treatment recommendations for gonorrhea, chlamydia, , and 
• Two-step testing for diagnosing genital  virus
• Expanded risk factors for  testing in pregnant women
• Information on FDA-cleared rectal and oral tests to diagnose chlamydia and gonorrhea
• A recommendation that universal  screening be conducted at least once in a lifetime for adults aged 18 years and older

Dr. Workowski emphasized updates to gonorrhea treatment that built on the recommendation published in December 2020 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC now recommends that gonorrhea be treated with a single 500-mg injection of ceftriaxone, and if chlamydial infection is not ruled out, treating with a regimen of 100 mg of oral doxycycline taken twice daily for 7 days. Other gonorrhea treatment recommendations include retesting patients 3 months after treatment and that a test of cure be conducted for people with pharyngeal gonorrhea 1 to 2 weeks after treatment, using either culture or nucleic-acid amplification tests.

“Effectively treating gonorrhea remains a public health priority,” Dr. Workowski said. “Gonorrhea can rapidly develop antibiotic resistance and is the second most commonly reported bacterial STI in the U.S., increasing 56% from 2015 to 2019.”

The updates to syphilis screening for pregnant women are also important, added Dr. Klausner. “We’ve seen a dramatic and shameful rise in congenital syphilis,” he said. In addition to screening all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, the CDC recommends retesting for syphilis at 28 weeks’ gestation and at delivery if the mother lives in an area where the prevalence of syphilis is high or if she is at risk of acquiring syphilis during pregnancy. An expectant mother is at higher risk if she has multiple sex partners, has an STI during pregnancy, has a partner with an STI, has a new sex partner, or misuses drugs, the recommendations state.

Dr. Klausner also noted that the updates provide more robust guidelines for treating transgender individuals and incarcerated people.

The treatment guidelines are available online along with a wall chart and a pocket guide that summarizes these updates. The mobile app with the 2015 guidelines will be retired at the end of July 2021, Dr. Workowski said. An app with these updated treatment recommendations is in development and will be available later this year.

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

On July 22, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines to reflect current screening, testing, and treatment recommendations. The guidelines were last updated in 2015.

The new recommendations come at a pivotal moment in the field’s history, Kimberly Workowski, MD, a medical officer at the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, told this news organization in an email. “The COVID-19 pandemic has caused decreased clinic capacity and drug and diagnostic test kit shortages,” she says. Many of these shortages have been resolved, she added, and it is important that health care professionals use the most current evidence-based recommendations for screening and management of STIs.

Updates to these guidelines were necessary to reflect “continued advances in research in the prevention of STIs, new interventions in terms of STI prevention, and thirdly, changing epidemiology,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, an STI specialist with the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There’s been increased concern about antimicrobial resistance, and that’s really driven some of the key changes in these new STI treatment guidelines.”

Notable updates to the guidelines include the following:

• Updated treatment recommendations for gonorrhea, chlamydia, , and 
• Two-step testing for diagnosing genital  virus
• Expanded risk factors for  testing in pregnant women
• Information on FDA-cleared rectal and oral tests to diagnose chlamydia and gonorrhea
• A recommendation that universal  screening be conducted at least once in a lifetime for adults aged 18 years and older

Dr. Workowski emphasized updates to gonorrhea treatment that built on the recommendation published in December 2020 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC now recommends that gonorrhea be treated with a single 500-mg injection of ceftriaxone, and if chlamydial infection is not ruled out, treating with a regimen of 100 mg of oral doxycycline taken twice daily for 7 days. Other gonorrhea treatment recommendations include retesting patients 3 months after treatment and that a test of cure be conducted for people with pharyngeal gonorrhea 1 to 2 weeks after treatment, using either culture or nucleic-acid amplification tests.

“Effectively treating gonorrhea remains a public health priority,” Dr. Workowski said. “Gonorrhea can rapidly develop antibiotic resistance and is the second most commonly reported bacterial STI in the U.S., increasing 56% from 2015 to 2019.”

The updates to syphilis screening for pregnant women are also important, added Dr. Klausner. “We’ve seen a dramatic and shameful rise in congenital syphilis,” he said. In addition to screening all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, the CDC recommends retesting for syphilis at 28 weeks’ gestation and at delivery if the mother lives in an area where the prevalence of syphilis is high or if she is at risk of acquiring syphilis during pregnancy. An expectant mother is at higher risk if she has multiple sex partners, has an STI during pregnancy, has a partner with an STI, has a new sex partner, or misuses drugs, the recommendations state.

Dr. Klausner also noted that the updates provide more robust guidelines for treating transgender individuals and incarcerated people.

The treatment guidelines are available online along with a wall chart and a pocket guide that summarizes these updates. The mobile app with the 2015 guidelines will be retired at the end of July 2021, Dr. Workowski said. An app with these updated treatment recommendations is in development and will be available later this year.

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

On July 22, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released updated sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines to reflect current screening, testing, and treatment recommendations. The guidelines were last updated in 2015.

The new recommendations come at a pivotal moment in the field’s history, Kimberly Workowski, MD, a medical officer at the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, told this news organization in an email. “The COVID-19 pandemic has caused decreased clinic capacity and drug and diagnostic test kit shortages,” she says. Many of these shortages have been resolved, she added, and it is important that health care professionals use the most current evidence-based recommendations for screening and management of STIs.

Updates to these guidelines were necessary to reflect “continued advances in research in the prevention of STIs, new interventions in terms of STI prevention, and thirdly, changing epidemiology,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, an STI specialist with the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There’s been increased concern about antimicrobial resistance, and that’s really driven some of the key changes in these new STI treatment guidelines.”

Notable updates to the guidelines include the following:

• Updated treatment recommendations for gonorrhea, chlamydia, , and 
• Two-step testing for diagnosing genital  virus
• Expanded risk factors for  testing in pregnant women
• Information on FDA-cleared rectal and oral tests to diagnose chlamydia and gonorrhea
• A recommendation that universal  screening be conducted at least once in a lifetime for adults aged 18 years and older

Dr. Workowski emphasized updates to gonorrhea treatment that built on the recommendation published in December 2020 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The CDC now recommends that gonorrhea be treated with a single 500-mg injection of ceftriaxone, and if chlamydial infection is not ruled out, treating with a regimen of 100 mg of oral doxycycline taken twice daily for 7 days. Other gonorrhea treatment recommendations include retesting patients 3 months after treatment and that a test of cure be conducted for people with pharyngeal gonorrhea 1 to 2 weeks after treatment, using either culture or nucleic-acid amplification tests.

“Effectively treating gonorrhea remains a public health priority,” Dr. Workowski said. “Gonorrhea can rapidly develop antibiotic resistance and is the second most commonly reported bacterial STI in the U.S., increasing 56% from 2015 to 2019.”

The updates to syphilis screening for pregnant women are also important, added Dr. Klausner. “We’ve seen a dramatic and shameful rise in congenital syphilis,” he said. In addition to screening all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, the CDC recommends retesting for syphilis at 28 weeks’ gestation and at delivery if the mother lives in an area where the prevalence of syphilis is high or if she is at risk of acquiring syphilis during pregnancy. An expectant mother is at higher risk if she has multiple sex partners, has an STI during pregnancy, has a partner with an STI, has a new sex partner, or misuses drugs, the recommendations state.

Dr. Klausner also noted that the updates provide more robust guidelines for treating transgender individuals and incarcerated people.

The treatment guidelines are available online along with a wall chart and a pocket guide that summarizes these updates. The mobile app with the 2015 guidelines will be retired at the end of July 2021, Dr. Workowski said. An app with these updated treatment recommendations is in development and will be available later this year.

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

Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)–guided needle biopsy of the prostate confirms a diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer, and the digital rectal exam and CT scan are concerning for extracapsular invasion. Genetic and molecular biomarker testing is recommended.

According to GLOBOCAN 2020 data, prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in men (second only to lung cancer) and the fifth leading cause of death globally. Compared with other races, the incidence of prostate cancer in the United States is highest in Black men, and mortality rates are more than double than those reported in White men. In its early stages, prostate cancer is often asymptomatic and has an indolent course. Locally advanced prostate cancer is a clinical scenario in which the cancer has extended beyond the prostatic capsule. It involves invasion of the pericapsular tissue, bladder neck, or seminal vesicles, without lymph node involvement or distant metastases. Biological recurrence, metastatic progression, and poor survival are associated with locally advanced prostate cancer.

In the presence of advanced disease, troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms — particularly abnormal growth of prostate cancer–induced bladder outlet obstruction — are often reported. Such symptoms have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Other symptoms of locally advanced disease may include hematuria, pain, urinary retention, urinary incontinence, hematospermia, painful ejaculation, anejaculation, constipation, and hematochezia.

Guideline-based approaches to the management of prostate cancer begin with appropriate risk stratification based on biopsy, physical examination, and imaging evaluation. In patients with advanced prostate cancer, treatment decisions should incorporate a multidisciplinary approach and include consideration of life expectancy, comorbidities, patient preferences, and tumor characteristics. Establishing whether the patient has widely advanced disease vs locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3) is helpful for ascertaining which treatment options are available. Pain control and other supportive therapies should be optimized in cases involving advanced prostate cancer. 

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), combined with luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists or surgical castration, is considered first-line treatment for advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Abundant data show that ADT in advanced symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer, either in the form of surgical castration or LHRH analogues, is beneficial chiefly for palliation of symptoms. However, the combination of ADT with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy has been shown to improve overall and cancer-specific survival in selected patients with nonmetastatic but locally advanced prostate cancer. Recently, a prospective study showed a significant improvement in urodynamic variables and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire results, including IPSS-related quality of life, in patients with advanced cancer who received ADT, although lower urinary tract symptoms persist in some patients.

For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), continued treatment with ADT in combination with either androgen pathway–directed therapy (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, enzalutamide) or chemotherapy (docetaxel) is generally recommended. A recent meta-analysis found that the next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors abiraterone, apalutamide, and enzalutamide appear to be significantly more effective than ADT and more effective than docetaxel for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. For selected patients with mHSPC with low-volume metastatic disease, primary radiation therapy to the prostate in combination with ADT may be offered. First-generation antiandrogens (bicalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) in combination with LHRH agonists are not recommended for patients with mHSPC, unless needed to block testosterone flare. In addition, oral androgen pathway–directed therapy (eg, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, bicalutamide, darolutamide, enzalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) without ADT is not recommended for patients with mHSPC. 

In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide with continued ADT have been shown to postpone the onset of metastases and death. Unless within the context of a clinical trial, systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy should not be offered to patients with nmCRPC. 

For patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), continued ADT with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, docetaxel, or enzalutamide is recommended. For patients with mCRPC who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, sipuleucel-T may be offered. At present, radium-223 is the only available therapy for mCRPC that specifically targets bone metastases, delays development of skeletal-related events, and improves survival. On the basis of results of the ALSYMPCA study, radium-223 in combination with systemic therapies is now considered an effective, efficient, and well-tolerated therapy for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone lesions. The effects of local radiation therapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer and the optimal combination of systemic therapies in the metastatic setting are still under investigation.

Complete recommendations on sequencing agents and selecting therapies for patients with advanced prostate cancer can be found in guidelines from the American Urological Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the European Association of Urology.

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)–guided needle biopsy of the prostate confirms a diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer, and the digital rectal exam and CT scan are concerning for extracapsular invasion. Genetic and molecular biomarker testing is recommended.

According to GLOBOCAN 2020 data, prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in men (second only to lung cancer) and the fifth leading cause of death globally. Compared with other races, the incidence of prostate cancer in the United States is highest in Black men, and mortality rates are more than double than those reported in White men. In its early stages, prostate cancer is often asymptomatic and has an indolent course. Locally advanced prostate cancer is a clinical scenario in which the cancer has extended beyond the prostatic capsule. It involves invasion of the pericapsular tissue, bladder neck, or seminal vesicles, without lymph node involvement or distant metastases. Biological recurrence, metastatic progression, and poor survival are associated with locally advanced prostate cancer.

In the presence of advanced disease, troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms — particularly abnormal growth of prostate cancer–induced bladder outlet obstruction — are often reported. Such symptoms have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Other symptoms of locally advanced disease may include hematuria, pain, urinary retention, urinary incontinence, hematospermia, painful ejaculation, anejaculation, constipation, and hematochezia.

Guideline-based approaches to the management of prostate cancer begin with appropriate risk stratification based on biopsy, physical examination, and imaging evaluation. In patients with advanced prostate cancer, treatment decisions should incorporate a multidisciplinary approach and include consideration of life expectancy, comorbidities, patient preferences, and tumor characteristics. Establishing whether the patient has widely advanced disease vs locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3) is helpful for ascertaining which treatment options are available. Pain control and other supportive therapies should be optimized in cases involving advanced prostate cancer. 

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), combined with luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists or surgical castration, is considered first-line treatment for advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Abundant data show that ADT in advanced symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer, either in the form of surgical castration or LHRH analogues, is beneficial chiefly for palliation of symptoms. However, the combination of ADT with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy has been shown to improve overall and cancer-specific survival in selected patients with nonmetastatic but locally advanced prostate cancer. Recently, a prospective study showed a significant improvement in urodynamic variables and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire results, including IPSS-related quality of life, in patients with advanced cancer who received ADT, although lower urinary tract symptoms persist in some patients.

For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), continued treatment with ADT in combination with either androgen pathway–directed therapy (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, enzalutamide) or chemotherapy (docetaxel) is generally recommended. A recent meta-analysis found that the next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors abiraterone, apalutamide, and enzalutamide appear to be significantly more effective than ADT and more effective than docetaxel for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. For selected patients with mHSPC with low-volume metastatic disease, primary radiation therapy to the prostate in combination with ADT may be offered. First-generation antiandrogens (bicalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) in combination with LHRH agonists are not recommended for patients with mHSPC, unless needed to block testosterone flare. In addition, oral androgen pathway–directed therapy (eg, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, bicalutamide, darolutamide, enzalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) without ADT is not recommended for patients with mHSPC. 

In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide with continued ADT have been shown to postpone the onset of metastases and death. Unless within the context of a clinical trial, systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy should not be offered to patients with nmCRPC. 

For patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), continued ADT with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, docetaxel, or enzalutamide is recommended. For patients with mCRPC who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, sipuleucel-T may be offered. At present, radium-223 is the only available therapy for mCRPC that specifically targets bone metastases, delays development of skeletal-related events, and improves survival. On the basis of results of the ALSYMPCA study, radium-223 in combination with systemic therapies is now considered an effective, efficient, and well-tolerated therapy for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone lesions. The effects of local radiation therapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer and the optimal combination of systemic therapies in the metastatic setting are still under investigation.

Complete recommendations on sequencing agents and selecting therapies for patients with advanced prostate cancer can be found in guidelines from the American Urological Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the European Association of Urology.

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)–guided needle biopsy of the prostate confirms a diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer, and the digital rectal exam and CT scan are concerning for extracapsular invasion. Genetic and molecular biomarker testing is recommended.

According to GLOBOCAN 2020 data, prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in men (second only to lung cancer) and the fifth leading cause of death globally. Compared with other races, the incidence of prostate cancer in the United States is highest in Black men, and mortality rates are more than double than those reported in White men. In its early stages, prostate cancer is often asymptomatic and has an indolent course. Locally advanced prostate cancer is a clinical scenario in which the cancer has extended beyond the prostatic capsule. It involves invasion of the pericapsular tissue, bladder neck, or seminal vesicles, without lymph node involvement or distant metastases. Biological recurrence, metastatic progression, and poor survival are associated with locally advanced prostate cancer.

In the presence of advanced disease, troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms — particularly abnormal growth of prostate cancer–induced bladder outlet obstruction — are often reported. Such symptoms have a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Other symptoms of locally advanced disease may include hematuria, pain, urinary retention, urinary incontinence, hematospermia, painful ejaculation, anejaculation, constipation, and hematochezia.

Guideline-based approaches to the management of prostate cancer begin with appropriate risk stratification based on biopsy, physical examination, and imaging evaluation. In patients with advanced prostate cancer, treatment decisions should incorporate a multidisciplinary approach and include consideration of life expectancy, comorbidities, patient preferences, and tumor characteristics. Establishing whether the patient has widely advanced disease vs locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3) is helpful for ascertaining which treatment options are available. Pain control and other supportive therapies should be optimized in cases involving advanced prostate cancer. 

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), combined with luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists or surgical castration, is considered first-line treatment for advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Abundant data show that ADT in advanced symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer, either in the form of surgical castration or LHRH analogues, is beneficial chiefly for palliation of symptoms. However, the combination of ADT with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy has been shown to improve overall and cancer-specific survival in selected patients with nonmetastatic but locally advanced prostate cancer. Recently, a prospective study showed a significant improvement in urodynamic variables and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire results, including IPSS-related quality of life, in patients with advanced cancer who received ADT, although lower urinary tract symptoms persist in some patients.

For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), continued treatment with ADT in combination with either androgen pathway–directed therapy (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, enzalutamide) or chemotherapy (docetaxel) is generally recommended. A recent meta-analysis found that the next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors abiraterone, apalutamide, and enzalutamide appear to be significantly more effective than ADT and more effective than docetaxel for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. For selected patients with mHSPC with low-volume metastatic disease, primary radiation therapy to the prostate in combination with ADT may be offered. First-generation antiandrogens (bicalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) in combination with LHRH agonists are not recommended for patients with mHSPC, unless needed to block testosterone flare. In addition, oral androgen pathway–directed therapy (eg, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, apalutamide, bicalutamide, darolutamide, enzalutamide, flutamide, nilutamide) without ADT is not recommended for patients with mHSPC. 

In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide with continued ADT have been shown to postpone the onset of metastases and death. Unless within the context of a clinical trial, systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy should not be offered to patients with nmCRPC. 

For patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), continued ADT with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, docetaxel, or enzalutamide is recommended. For patients with mCRPC who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, sipuleucel-T may be offered. At present, radium-223 is the only available therapy for mCRPC that specifically targets bone metastases, delays development of skeletal-related events, and improves survival. On the basis of results of the ALSYMPCA study, radium-223 in combination with systemic therapies is now considered an effective, efficient, and well-tolerated therapy for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone lesions. The effects of local radiation therapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer and the optimal combination of systemic therapies in the metastatic setting are still under investigation.

Complete recommendations on sequencing agents and selecting therapies for patients with advanced prostate cancer can be found in guidelines from the American Urological Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the European Association of Urology.

Kyle A. Richards, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Chief of Urology, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin

Kyle A. Richards, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Not long ago, physicians considered autoinflammatory diseases in pediatric patients as rare, one-in-a-million types of diagnoses, but with the rapid expansion of genetic testing, pediatric rheumatologists like Dilan Dissanayake, MD, PhD, are finding that these diseases aren’t so rare after all.

“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”

Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.

While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.

Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.

The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.

The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.

From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.

Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).

Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.

The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.

Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.

Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.

“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.

Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”

Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.

Not long ago, physicians considered autoinflammatory diseases in pediatric patients as rare, one-in-a-million types of diagnoses, but with the rapid expansion of genetic testing, pediatric rheumatologists like Dilan Dissanayake, MD, PhD, are finding that these diseases aren’t so rare after all.

“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”

Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.

While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.

Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.

The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.

The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.

From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.

Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).

Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.

The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.

Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.

Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.

“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.

Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”

Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.

Not long ago, physicians considered autoinflammatory diseases in pediatric patients as rare, one-in-a-million types of diagnoses, but with the rapid expansion of genetic testing, pediatric rheumatologists like Dilan Dissanayake, MD, PhD, are finding that these diseases aren’t so rare after all.

“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”

Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.

While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.

Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.

The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.

The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.

From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.

Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).

Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.

The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.

Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.

Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.

“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.

Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”

Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.

A two-drug fixed-dose tablet therapy of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato, ViiV Healthcare; DTG/3TC) shows noninferiority in viral suppression among people with HIV-1 who switch from any type of three- or four-drug antiretroviral (ART) regimens. But, DTG/3TC also shows feasibility as a first-line regimen in a test-and-treat setting, according to two studies presented at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

The results on the switch to DTG/3TC are from the phase 3 SALSA trial, which compared patients with HIV-1 who either remained on any current three- or four-drug ART regimen or who switched to the two-drug dolutegravir option.

For the primary endpoint, rates of virologic failure at 48 weeks were noninferior in the DTG/3TC group versus the three- or four-drug regimen (.4% vs. 1.2; adjusted difference: –.8% [95% confidence interval, –2.4%, .8%]).

In addition, rates of virologic suppression at week 48 were noninferior, with 94.3% of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL in the DTG/3TC group versus 92.7% in the three- or four-drug regimen (adjusted difference: 1.6% [95% CI, –2.8%, 5.9%).

“These data build upon the previous TANGO study and support DTG/3TC as a robust switch option with high levels of efficacy, good safety and tolerability, and a high barrier of resistance,” first author Josep M. Llibre, MD, PhD, consultant, infectious diseases department, Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital, Barcelona, said in presenting the findings.

The two-drug dolutegravir-based regimen had previously been shown in the phase 3 GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials to have virologic noninferiority and safety compared with three- or four-drug DTG plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) ART regimens in treatment-naive individuals, and, in the subsequent TANGO trial, the regimen was also noninferior versus tenofovir alafenamide–based regimens among treatment-experienced patients, at 144 weeks in both studies.


 

Trial details

The new SALSA trial, designed to broaden the comparison to treatment with any current three- or four-drug ART regimen, involved 493 patients at 120 study sites in 17 countries.

All patients were initially on a three- or four-drug regimen, with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 c/mL for more than 6 months, and without prior virologic failure or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or dolutegravir resistance-associated mutations.

The participants were randomized 1:1 to remain on their current regimen (n = 247) or to switch to the once-daily, fixed-dose tablet two-drug combination of dolutegravir 50 mg/lamivudine 300 mg (n = 246) for 52 weeks.

In addition to the noninferior virologic outcomes, there were no serious drug-related adverse events, no confirmed virologic withdrawals, and no resistance mutations in either group.

Of note, weight increase was higher in the DTG/3TC group (8%; n = 20) versus the current ART arm (2%; n = 5), as has been observed in previous studies. The adjusted mean change in weight from baseline to week 48 in the DTG arm was 2.1 kg versus 0.6 kg in the current ART arm.

Dr. Llibre pointed out that many of the participants who switched were discontinuing regimens such as TDF and efavirenz that are associated with weight loss, “so discontinuation could be more related to weight gain than the introduction of dolutegravir, but this deserves further study,” he noted.

There were no significant differences in changes in eGFR and fasting lipids, or in changes in inflammatory biomarkers between the groups.

Bone and renal biomarkers were more favorable in the dolutegravir two-drug arm, suggesting that bone and renal function was either maintained or even improved with the drug switch, Dr. Llibre noted.

STAT trial: Feasibility of two-drug DTG/3TC as first-line treatment

In further findings presented at the meeting on the STAT trial, researchers evaluated the feasibility not of switching to, but of initiating patients on, the two-drug DTG treatment as a first-line therapy, within 14 days of HIV-1 diagnosis.

The “test-and-treat” approach counters common belief that the regimen should be started only after the traditional three-drug regimens, because of the potential of transmitted resistance and baseline hepatitis B virus coinfection.

In the study of 131 patients, at week 48, 82% (107/131) of all participants and 97% (107/110) of those with available data achieved HIV-1 RNA levels of < 50 c/mL.

While two participants had confirmed virologic failure in the study, there were no treatment-emergent resistance-associated mutations, and neither patient discontinued the two-drug DTG treatment. There were low rates of drug-related adverse events (8%) and they were not serious.

A two-drug fixed-dose tablet therapy of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato, ViiV Healthcare; DTG/3TC) shows noninferiority in viral suppression among people with HIV-1 who switch from any type of three- or four-drug antiretroviral (ART) regimens. But, DTG/3TC also shows feasibility as a first-line regimen in a test-and-treat setting, according to two studies presented at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

The results on the switch to DTG/3TC are from the phase 3 SALSA trial, which compared patients with HIV-1 who either remained on any current three- or four-drug ART regimen or who switched to the two-drug dolutegravir option.

For the primary endpoint, rates of virologic failure at 48 weeks were noninferior in the DTG/3TC group versus the three- or four-drug regimen (.4% vs. 1.2; adjusted difference: –.8% [95% confidence interval, –2.4%, .8%]).

In addition, rates of virologic suppression at week 48 were noninferior, with 94.3% of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL in the DTG/3TC group versus 92.7% in the three- or four-drug regimen (adjusted difference: 1.6% [95% CI, –2.8%, 5.9%).

“These data build upon the previous TANGO study and support DTG/3TC as a robust switch option with high levels of efficacy, good safety and tolerability, and a high barrier of resistance,” first author Josep M. Llibre, MD, PhD, consultant, infectious diseases department, Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital, Barcelona, said in presenting the findings.

The two-drug dolutegravir-based regimen had previously been shown in the phase 3 GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials to have virologic noninferiority and safety compared with three- or four-drug DTG plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) ART regimens in treatment-naive individuals, and, in the subsequent TANGO trial, the regimen was also noninferior versus tenofovir alafenamide–based regimens among treatment-experienced patients, at 144 weeks in both studies.


 

Trial details

The new SALSA trial, designed to broaden the comparison to treatment with any current three- or four-drug ART regimen, involved 493 patients at 120 study sites in 17 countries.

All patients were initially on a three- or four-drug regimen, with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 c/mL for more than 6 months, and without prior virologic failure or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or dolutegravir resistance-associated mutations.

The participants were randomized 1:1 to remain on their current regimen (n = 247) or to switch to the once-daily, fixed-dose tablet two-drug combination of dolutegravir 50 mg/lamivudine 300 mg (n = 246) for 52 weeks.

In addition to the noninferior virologic outcomes, there were no serious drug-related adverse events, no confirmed virologic withdrawals, and no resistance mutations in either group.

Of note, weight increase was higher in the DTG/3TC group (8%; n = 20) versus the current ART arm (2%; n = 5), as has been observed in previous studies. The adjusted mean change in weight from baseline to week 48 in the DTG arm was 2.1 kg versus 0.6 kg in the current ART arm.

Dr. Llibre pointed out that many of the participants who switched were discontinuing regimens such as TDF and efavirenz that are associated with weight loss, “so discontinuation could be more related to weight gain than the introduction of dolutegravir, but this deserves further study,” he noted.

There were no significant differences in changes in eGFR and fasting lipids, or in changes in inflammatory biomarkers between the groups.

Bone and renal biomarkers were more favorable in the dolutegravir two-drug arm, suggesting that bone and renal function was either maintained or even improved with the drug switch, Dr. Llibre noted.

STAT trial: Feasibility of two-drug DTG/3TC as first-line treatment

In further findings presented at the meeting on the STAT trial, researchers evaluated the feasibility not of switching to, but of initiating patients on, the two-drug DTG treatment as a first-line therapy, within 14 days of HIV-1 diagnosis.

The “test-and-treat” approach counters common belief that the regimen should be started only after the traditional three-drug regimens, because of the potential of transmitted resistance and baseline hepatitis B virus coinfection.

In the study of 131 patients, at week 48, 82% (107/131) of all participants and 97% (107/110) of those with available data achieved HIV-1 RNA levels of < 50 c/mL.

While two participants had confirmed virologic failure in the study, there were no treatment-emergent resistance-associated mutations, and neither patient discontinued the two-drug DTG treatment. There were low rates of drug-related adverse events (8%) and they were not serious.

A two-drug fixed-dose tablet therapy of dolutegravir/lamivudine (Dovato, ViiV Healthcare; DTG/3TC) shows noninferiority in viral suppression among people with HIV-1 who switch from any type of three- or four-drug antiretroviral (ART) regimens. But, DTG/3TC also shows feasibility as a first-line regimen in a test-and-treat setting, according to two studies presented at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

The results on the switch to DTG/3TC are from the phase 3 SALSA trial, which compared patients with HIV-1 who either remained on any current three- or four-drug ART regimen or who switched to the two-drug dolutegravir option.

For the primary endpoint, rates of virologic failure at 48 weeks were noninferior in the DTG/3TC group versus the three- or four-drug regimen (.4% vs. 1.2; adjusted difference: –.8% [95% confidence interval, –2.4%, .8%]).

In addition, rates of virologic suppression at week 48 were noninferior, with 94.3% of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL in the DTG/3TC group versus 92.7% in the three- or four-drug regimen (adjusted difference: 1.6% [95% CI, –2.8%, 5.9%).

“These data build upon the previous TANGO study and support DTG/3TC as a robust switch option with high levels of efficacy, good safety and tolerability, and a high barrier of resistance,” first author Josep M. Llibre, MD, PhD, consultant, infectious diseases department, Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital, Barcelona, said in presenting the findings.

The two-drug dolutegravir-based regimen had previously been shown in the phase 3 GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 trials to have virologic noninferiority and safety compared with three- or four-drug DTG plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) ART regimens in treatment-naive individuals, and, in the subsequent TANGO trial, the regimen was also noninferior versus tenofovir alafenamide–based regimens among treatment-experienced patients, at 144 weeks in both studies.


 

Trial details

The new SALSA trial, designed to broaden the comparison to treatment with any current three- or four-drug ART regimen, involved 493 patients at 120 study sites in 17 countries.

All patients were initially on a three- or four-drug regimen, with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 c/mL for more than 6 months, and without prior virologic failure or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or dolutegravir resistance-associated mutations.

The participants were randomized 1:1 to remain on their current regimen (n = 247) or to switch to the once-daily, fixed-dose tablet two-drug combination of dolutegravir 50 mg/lamivudine 300 mg (n = 246) for 52 weeks.

In addition to the noninferior virologic outcomes, there were no serious drug-related adverse events, no confirmed virologic withdrawals, and no resistance mutations in either group.

Of note, weight increase was higher in the DTG/3TC group (8%; n = 20) versus the current ART arm (2%; n = 5), as has been observed in previous studies. The adjusted mean change in weight from baseline to week 48 in the DTG arm was 2.1 kg versus 0.6 kg in the current ART arm.

Dr. Llibre pointed out that many of the participants who switched were discontinuing regimens such as TDF and efavirenz that are associated with weight loss, “so discontinuation could be more related to weight gain than the introduction of dolutegravir, but this deserves further study,” he noted.

There were no significant differences in changes in eGFR and fasting lipids, or in changes in inflammatory biomarkers between the groups.

Bone and renal biomarkers were more favorable in the dolutegravir two-drug arm, suggesting that bone and renal function was either maintained or even improved with the drug switch, Dr. Llibre noted.

STAT trial: Feasibility of two-drug DTG/3TC as first-line treatment

In further findings presented at the meeting on the STAT trial, researchers evaluated the feasibility not of switching to, but of initiating patients on, the two-drug DTG treatment as a first-line therapy, within 14 days of HIV-1 diagnosis.

The “test-and-treat” approach counters common belief that the regimen should be started only after the traditional three-drug regimens, because of the potential of transmitted resistance and baseline hepatitis B virus coinfection.

In the study of 131 patients, at week 48, 82% (107/131) of all participants and 97% (107/110) of those with available data achieved HIV-1 RNA levels of < 50 c/mL.

While two participants had confirmed virologic failure in the study, there were no treatment-emergent resistance-associated mutations, and neither patient discontinued the two-drug DTG treatment. There were low rates of drug-related adverse events (8%) and they were not serious.

The drug maker Pfizer recently announced that vaccinated people are likely to need a booster shot to be effectively protected against new variants of COVID-19 and that the company would apply for Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the shot. Top government health officials immediately and emphatically announced that the booster isn’t needed right now – and held firm to that position even after Pfizer’s top scientist made his case and shared preliminary data with them on July 12.

This has led to confusion. Should the nearly 60% of adult Americans who have been fully vaccinated seek out a booster or not? Is the protection that has allowed them to see loved ones and go out to dinner fading?

Ultimately, the question of whether a booster is needed is unlikely to determine the FDA’s decision. If recent history is predictive, booster shots will be here before long. That’s because of the outdated, 60-year-old basic standard the FDA uses to authorize medicines for sale: Is a new drug “safe and effective?”

The FDA, using that standard, will very likely have to authorize Pfizer’s booster for emergency use, as it did the company’s prior COVID shot. The booster is likely to be safe – hundreds of millions have taken the earlier shots – and Pfizer reported that it dramatically increases a vaccinated person’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. From that perspective, it may also be considered very effective.

But does that kind of efficacy matter? Is a higher level of antibodies needed to protect vaccinated Americans? Though antibody levels may wane some over time, the current vaccines deliver perfectly good immunity so far.

What if a booster is safe and effective in one sense but simply not needed – at least for now?

Reliance on the simple “safe and effective” standard – which certainly sounds reasonable – is a relic of a time when there were far fewer and simpler medicines available to treat diseases and before pharmaceutical manufacturing became one of the world’s biggest businesses.

The FDA’s 1938 landmark legislation focused primarily on safety after more than 100 Americans died from a raspberry-flavored liquid form of an early antibiotic because one of its ingredients was used as antifreeze. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act set out more specific requirements for drug approval: Companies must scientifically prove a drug’s effectiveness through “adequate and well-controlled studies.”

In today’s pharmaceutical universe, a simple “safe and effective” determination is not always an adequate bar, and it can be manipulated to sell drugs of questionable value. There’s also big money involved: Pfizer is already projecting $26 billion in COVID revenue in 2021.

The United States’ continued use of this standard to let drugs into the market has led to the approval of expensive, not necessarily very effective drugs. In 2014, for example, the FDA approved a toenail fungus drug that can cost up to $1,500 a month and that studies showed cured fewer than 10% of patients after a year of treatment. That’s more effective than doing nothing but less effective and more costly than a number of other treatments for this bothersome malady.

It has also led to a plethora of high-priced drugs to treat diseases like cancers, multiple sclerosis and type 2 diabetes that are all more effective than a placebo but have often not been tested very much against one another to determine which are most effective.

In today’s complex world, clarification is needed to determine just what kind of effectiveness the FDA should demand. And should that be the job of the FDA alone?

For example, should drugmakers prove a drug is significantly more effective than products already on the market? Or demonstrate cost-effectiveness – the health value of a product relative to its price – a metric used by Britain’s health system? And in which cases is effectiveness against a surrogate marker – like an antibody level – a good enough stand-in for whether a drug will have a significant impact on a patient’s health?

In most industrialized countries, broad access to the national market is a two-step process, said Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies drug development, marketing and law and recently served on an FDA advisory committee. The first part certifies that a drug is sufficiently safe and effective. That is immediately followed by an independent health technology assessment to see where it fits in the treatment armamentarium, including, in some countries, whether it is useful enough to be sold at all at the stated price. But there’s no such automatic process in the United States.

When Pfizer applies for authorization, the FDA may well clear a booster for the U.S. market. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely with advice from National Institutes of Health experts, will then have to decide whether to recommend it and for whom. This judgment call usually determines whether insurers will cover it. Pfizer is likely to profit handsomely from a government authorization, and the company will gain some revenue even if only the worried well, who can pay out of pocket, decide to get the shot.

To make any recommendation on a booster, government experts say they need more data. They could, for example, as Anthony S. Fauci, MD, has suggested, eventually green-light the additional vaccine shot only for a small group of patients at high risk for a deadly infection, such as the very old or transplant recipients who take immunosuppressant drugs, as some other countries have done.

But until the United States refines the FDA’s “safe and effective” standard or adds a second layer of vetting, when new products hit the market and manufacturers promote them, Americans will be left to decipher whose version of effective and necessary matters to them.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The drug maker Pfizer recently announced that vaccinated people are likely to need a booster shot to be effectively protected against new variants of COVID-19 and that the company would apply for Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the shot. Top government health officials immediately and emphatically announced that the booster isn’t needed right now – and held firm to that position even after Pfizer’s top scientist made his case and shared preliminary data with them on July 12.

This has led to confusion. Should the nearly 60% of adult Americans who have been fully vaccinated seek out a booster or not? Is the protection that has allowed them to see loved ones and go out to dinner fading?

Ultimately, the question of whether a booster is needed is unlikely to determine the FDA’s decision. If recent history is predictive, booster shots will be here before long. That’s because of the outdated, 60-year-old basic standard the FDA uses to authorize medicines for sale: Is a new drug “safe and effective?”

The FDA, using that standard, will very likely have to authorize Pfizer’s booster for emergency use, as it did the company’s prior COVID shot. The booster is likely to be safe – hundreds of millions have taken the earlier shots – and Pfizer reported that it dramatically increases a vaccinated person’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. From that perspective, it may also be considered very effective.

But does that kind of efficacy matter? Is a higher level of antibodies needed to protect vaccinated Americans? Though antibody levels may wane some over time, the current vaccines deliver perfectly good immunity so far.

What if a booster is safe and effective in one sense but simply not needed – at least for now?

Reliance on the simple “safe and effective” standard – which certainly sounds reasonable – is a relic of a time when there were far fewer and simpler medicines available to treat diseases and before pharmaceutical manufacturing became one of the world’s biggest businesses.

The FDA’s 1938 landmark legislation focused primarily on safety after more than 100 Americans died from a raspberry-flavored liquid form of an early antibiotic because one of its ingredients was used as antifreeze. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act set out more specific requirements for drug approval: Companies must scientifically prove a drug’s effectiveness through “adequate and well-controlled studies.”

In today’s pharmaceutical universe, a simple “safe and effective” determination is not always an adequate bar, and it can be manipulated to sell drugs of questionable value. There’s also big money involved: Pfizer is already projecting $26 billion in COVID revenue in 2021.

The United States’ continued use of this standard to let drugs into the market has led to the approval of expensive, not necessarily very effective drugs. In 2014, for example, the FDA approved a toenail fungus drug that can cost up to $1,500 a month and that studies showed cured fewer than 10% of patients after a year of treatment. That’s more effective than doing nothing but less effective and more costly than a number of other treatments for this bothersome malady.

It has also led to a plethora of high-priced drugs to treat diseases like cancers, multiple sclerosis and type 2 diabetes that are all more effective than a placebo but have often not been tested very much against one another to determine which are most effective.

In today’s complex world, clarification is needed to determine just what kind of effectiveness the FDA should demand. And should that be the job of the FDA alone?

For example, should drugmakers prove a drug is significantly more effective than products already on the market? Or demonstrate cost-effectiveness – the health value of a product relative to its price – a metric used by Britain’s health system? And in which cases is effectiveness against a surrogate marker – like an antibody level – a good enough stand-in for whether a drug will have a significant impact on a patient’s health?

In most industrialized countries, broad access to the national market is a two-step process, said Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies drug development, marketing and law and recently served on an FDA advisory committee. The first part certifies that a drug is sufficiently safe and effective. That is immediately followed by an independent health technology assessment to see where it fits in the treatment armamentarium, including, in some countries, whether it is useful enough to be sold at all at the stated price. But there’s no such automatic process in the United States.

When Pfizer applies for authorization, the FDA may well clear a booster for the U.S. market. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely with advice from National Institutes of Health experts, will then have to decide whether to recommend it and for whom. This judgment call usually determines whether insurers will cover it. Pfizer is likely to profit handsomely from a government authorization, and the company will gain some revenue even if only the worried well, who can pay out of pocket, decide to get the shot.

To make any recommendation on a booster, government experts say they need more data. They could, for example, as Anthony S. Fauci, MD, has suggested, eventually green-light the additional vaccine shot only for a small group of patients at high risk for a deadly infection, such as the very old or transplant recipients who take immunosuppressant drugs, as some other countries have done.

But until the United States refines the FDA’s “safe and effective” standard or adds a second layer of vetting, when new products hit the market and manufacturers promote them, Americans will be left to decipher whose version of effective and necessary matters to them.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The drug maker Pfizer recently announced that vaccinated people are likely to need a booster shot to be effectively protected against new variants of COVID-19 and that the company would apply for Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the shot. Top government health officials immediately and emphatically announced that the booster isn’t needed right now – and held firm to that position even after Pfizer’s top scientist made his case and shared preliminary data with them on July 12.

This has led to confusion. Should the nearly 60% of adult Americans who have been fully vaccinated seek out a booster or not? Is the protection that has allowed them to see loved ones and go out to dinner fading?

Ultimately, the question of whether a booster is needed is unlikely to determine the FDA’s decision. If recent history is predictive, booster shots will be here before long. That’s because of the outdated, 60-year-old basic standard the FDA uses to authorize medicines for sale: Is a new drug “safe and effective?”

The FDA, using that standard, will very likely have to authorize Pfizer’s booster for emergency use, as it did the company’s prior COVID shot. The booster is likely to be safe – hundreds of millions have taken the earlier shots – and Pfizer reported that it dramatically increases a vaccinated person’s antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. From that perspective, it may also be considered very effective.

But does that kind of efficacy matter? Is a higher level of antibodies needed to protect vaccinated Americans? Though antibody levels may wane some over time, the current vaccines deliver perfectly good immunity so far.

What if a booster is safe and effective in one sense but simply not needed – at least for now?

Reliance on the simple “safe and effective” standard – which certainly sounds reasonable – is a relic of a time when there were far fewer and simpler medicines available to treat diseases and before pharmaceutical manufacturing became one of the world’s biggest businesses.

The FDA’s 1938 landmark legislation focused primarily on safety after more than 100 Americans died from a raspberry-flavored liquid form of an early antibiotic because one of its ingredients was used as antifreeze. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act set out more specific requirements for drug approval: Companies must scientifically prove a drug’s effectiveness through “adequate and well-controlled studies.”

In today’s pharmaceutical universe, a simple “safe and effective” determination is not always an adequate bar, and it can be manipulated to sell drugs of questionable value. There’s also big money involved: Pfizer is already projecting $26 billion in COVID revenue in 2021.

The United States’ continued use of this standard to let drugs into the market has led to the approval of expensive, not necessarily very effective drugs. In 2014, for example, the FDA approved a toenail fungus drug that can cost up to $1,500 a month and that studies showed cured fewer than 10% of patients after a year of treatment. That’s more effective than doing nothing but less effective and more costly than a number of other treatments for this bothersome malady.

It has also led to a plethora of high-priced drugs to treat diseases like cancers, multiple sclerosis and type 2 diabetes that are all more effective than a placebo but have often not been tested very much against one another to determine which are most effective.

In today’s complex world, clarification is needed to determine just what kind of effectiveness the FDA should demand. And should that be the job of the FDA alone?

For example, should drugmakers prove a drug is significantly more effective than products already on the market? Or demonstrate cost-effectiveness – the health value of a product relative to its price – a metric used by Britain’s health system? And in which cases is effectiveness against a surrogate marker – like an antibody level – a good enough stand-in for whether a drug will have a significant impact on a patient’s health?

In most industrialized countries, broad access to the national market is a two-step process, said Aaron Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies drug development, marketing and law and recently served on an FDA advisory committee. The first part certifies that a drug is sufficiently safe and effective. That is immediately followed by an independent health technology assessment to see where it fits in the treatment armamentarium, including, in some countries, whether it is useful enough to be sold at all at the stated price. But there’s no such automatic process in the United States.

When Pfizer applies for authorization, the FDA may well clear a booster for the U.S. market. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely with advice from National Institutes of Health experts, will then have to decide whether to recommend it and for whom. This judgment call usually determines whether insurers will cover it. Pfizer is likely to profit handsomely from a government authorization, and the company will gain some revenue even if only the worried well, who can pay out of pocket, decide to get the shot.

To make any recommendation on a booster, government experts say they need more data. They could, for example, as Anthony S. Fauci, MD, has suggested, eventually green-light the additional vaccine shot only for a small group of patients at high risk for a deadly infection, such as the very old or transplant recipients who take immunosuppressant drugs, as some other countries have done.

But until the United States refines the FDA’s “safe and effective” standard or adds a second layer of vetting, when new products hit the market and manufacturers promote them, Americans will be left to decipher whose version of effective and necessary matters to them.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

After acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients report lingering malnutrition, loss of appetite, and failure to regain lost weight long after other gastrointestinal and non-GI symptoms have resolved, according to the results of a new study.

In the large, multicenter retrospective study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Anam Rizvi, MD, and colleagues at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, in New Hyde Park (N.Y.), report a high prevalence of GI symptoms among patients with COVID-19.

They followed 17,462 adult patients who were hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Of these, 3,229 (18.5%) also had GI symptoms.

The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 46.9% were women. The diverse population included White (46%), Black (23%), and Hispanic (17%) patients admitted to 12 medical centers of the Northwell Health System in Manhattan, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. The researchers followed patients for 3 months (88.7%) and 6 months (56.5%).

The most frequent initial GI symptoms were gastroenteritis (52.5%), malnutrition (23%), GI bleeding (20.4%), and idiopathic pancreatitis (0.5%). Notably, 50.6% of those with GI manifestations reported an inability to regain lost weight at 3 months; 32.4% reported failure to regain lost weight at 6 months.

These percentages rose among patients with malnutrition, as determined by a board-certified in-hospital nutritionist; 56.4% failed to gain weight at 6 months. A median 14.7-lb weight loss persisted at the half-year mark.

In contrast to these lingering symptoms, gastroenteritis, GI bleeding, and pancreatitis all resolved by 3 months post hospitalization.

“We were somewhat shocked that the prevalence of these symptoms was so high, but it’s overall reassuring that most GI symptoms of COVID-19 resolve,” study author Arvind J. Trindade, MD, told this news organization. “In some COVID patients, we’re seeing an inability to gain weight without diarrhea or postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome.

“Patients with an inability to regain weight should consider follow-up with a nutritionist,” continued Dr. Trindade, who is the center’s director of endoscopy and an associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, in Manhasset (N.Y.). His group also recommends developing malnutrition screening assessments for COVID-19 patients who recover from the acute infection.

The study was prompted by clinical observations during follow-up.

“We saw that a lot of these patients had trouble regaining weight, but we still don’t know why,” Dr. Trindade said. There were no discriminating clinical features apart from malnutrition that indicated an increased risk, and no socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. “We also looked at whether any factors predicted malnutrition, and there weren’t any that would predispose to malnutrition,” he added.

“We’re now reaching out to nonclinical investigators to see if there’s an interest in studying the underlying science behind these symptoms,” Dr. Trindade said.

His group plans to release 12-month follow-up data from the second wave of the pandemic in January 2022.

Initial GI symptoms are thought to be due to the virus’s S1 spike protein’s binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are abundant in GI epithelial cells. “But why patients have long-term GI sequelae is probably a whole different physiological mechanism,” Dr. Trindade said. “The thought is that there has to be some hormone or pathway that doesn’t allow them to regain weight.”

“The hospital cohort by [Dr. Rizvi] and colleagues is unique and helpful in that patients with GI symptoms are less likely to be hospitalized, and perhaps those patients who are sick enough for admission to the hospital who also have GI symptoms need specific attention paid to their appetite, weight, and nutritional status,” said Jordan M. Shapiro, MD, who commented on the study but was not involved in it.

The constellations of GI symptoms are difficult to distinguish from other postinfectious GI syndromes, such as irritable bowel syndrome and gastroparesis, added Dr. Shapiro, an assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “We’re still unpacking what is and is not specific to post–COVID-19 GI symptoms. Prospective studies are necessary to further study this phenomenon.”

Last year, a small Italian study documented significant weight loss and malnutrition in a hospital cohort of 213 discharged COVID-19 patients. In that study, the duration of disease was predictive of weight loss.

The authors note several study limitations, including that the cohort was limited to hospitalized patients from New York and that the 6-month follow-up period was short.

The study received no funding. Dr. Trindade serves as a consultant to Pentax Medical. All other authors and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, called the COVID-19 Delta variant “one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of” and reported more cases and hospitalizations.

“Today, I want to speak about our need to come together against a common enemy. SARS-CoV-2 and the Delta variant is spreading with incredible efficiency, and now represents more than 83% of the virus circulating in the U.S.,” Dr. Walensky said at a news briefing July 22. “It is one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of and that I have seen in my 20-year career.”

Dr. Walensky said there were 46,318 cases of COVID-19 reported July 21, with a 7-day average of 37,700 cases per day -- up 53% from the previous week. Hospital admissions average about 3,500 per day, an increase of 32%. The 7-day average of deaths is 237 -- a 19% increase from the previous week.

Meanwhile, there are now 162 million Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Areas with low vaccination coverage continue to have the highest case numbers, she reported, with unvaccinated people accounting for 97% of hospitalizations and deaths.

But there may be early signs of progress. The four states with the highest case rates -- Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada -- had a higher rate of new vaccinations, compared with the national average over the past week, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said.

He also announced that the administration will send $100 million to nearly 2,000 rural health clinics to support vaccine education and outreach efforts.

Dr. Walensky said despite the rising numbers, the CDC mask guidance remains the same, but she encouraged vaccinated people to wear masks if they choose.

“Whether you are vaccinated or not, please know we together are not out of the woods yet,” she said. “We are yet at another pivotal moment in this pandemic, with cases rising again and hospitals reaching their capacity in some areas.”

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

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, called the COVID-19 Delta variant “one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of” and reported more cases and hospitalizations.

“Today, I want to speak about our need to come together against a common enemy. SARS-CoV-2 and the Delta variant is spreading with incredible efficiency, and now represents more than 83% of the virus circulating in the U.S.,” Dr. Walensky said at a news briefing July 22. “It is one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of and that I have seen in my 20-year career.”

Dr. Walensky said there were 46,318 cases of COVID-19 reported July 21, with a 7-day average of 37,700 cases per day -- up 53% from the previous week. Hospital admissions average about 3,500 per day, an increase of 32%. The 7-day average of deaths is 237 -- a 19% increase from the previous week.

Meanwhile, there are now 162 million Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Areas with low vaccination coverage continue to have the highest case numbers, she reported, with unvaccinated people accounting for 97% of hospitalizations and deaths.

But there may be early signs of progress. The four states with the highest case rates -- Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada -- had a higher rate of new vaccinations, compared with the national average over the past week, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said.

He also announced that the administration will send $100 million to nearly 2,000 rural health clinics to support vaccine education and outreach efforts.

Dr. Walensky said despite the rising numbers, the CDC mask guidance remains the same, but she encouraged vaccinated people to wear masks if they choose.

“Whether you are vaccinated or not, please know we together are not out of the woods yet,” she said. “We are yet at another pivotal moment in this pandemic, with cases rising again and hospitals reaching their capacity in some areas.”

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

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, called the COVID-19 Delta variant “one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of” and reported more cases and hospitalizations.

“Today, I want to speak about our need to come together against a common enemy. SARS-CoV-2 and the Delta variant is spreading with incredible efficiency, and now represents more than 83% of the virus circulating in the U.S.,” Dr. Walensky said at a news briefing July 22. “It is one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of and that I have seen in my 20-year career.”

Dr. Walensky said there were 46,318 cases of COVID-19 reported July 21, with a 7-day average of 37,700 cases per day -- up 53% from the previous week. Hospital admissions average about 3,500 per day, an increase of 32%. The 7-day average of deaths is 237 -- a 19% increase from the previous week.

Meanwhile, there are now 162 million Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Areas with low vaccination coverage continue to have the highest case numbers, she reported, with unvaccinated people accounting for 97% of hospitalizations and deaths.

But there may be early signs of progress. The four states with the highest case rates -- Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada -- had a higher rate of new vaccinations, compared with the national average over the past week, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said.

He also announced that the administration will send $100 million to nearly 2,000 rural health clinics to support vaccine education and outreach efforts.

Dr. Walensky said despite the rising numbers, the CDC mask guidance remains the same, but she encouraged vaccinated people to wear masks if they choose.

“Whether you are vaccinated or not, please know we together are not out of the woods yet,” she said. “We are yet at another pivotal moment in this pandemic, with cases rising again and hospitals reaching their capacity in some areas.”

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