The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine shows promise in preventing people infected with coronavirus from developing serious symptoms and having to be hospitalized, according to a nonrandomized study of California racetrack workers.

“What we observed was that of all the patients who received fluvoxamine, none of them had a severe COVID infection that affected their lungs or their respiratory status,” Caline Mattar, MD, told KNBC in Los Angeles. Dr. Mattar is an infectious disease researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who helped conduct the study that was published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Fluvoxamine, which is sold under the brand name Luvox, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) often prescribed for people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It’s been on the market for over a decade.

Two-hundred employees at Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Berkeley, Calif., tested positive for COVID-19 last November. Track physician David Seftel, MD, offered fluvoxamine to 113 of them, having learned of a previous randomized study of COVID-19 patients that indicated fluvoxamine helped ward off serious illness, Science News said.

The 65 workers who took a 2-week course of the drug didn’t have to be hospitalized, didn’t have serious symptoms, and felt better after 2 weeks, the study said. Six of the 48 workers who turned down fluvoxamine had to be hospitalized, two required intensive care, and one died, the study said.

“Overall, fluvoxamine appears promising as early treatment for COVID-19 to prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalization and to prevent possible long haul symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks,” the study said.

The authors stressed that their findings were “a real world evidence study” necessitated by the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic.

They said their research needed verification from a randomized, controlled trial. Such a study is now being conducted by Washington University and other schools, KNBC said.

The track workers who were infected were predominantly male and Latino, and 30% had chronic medical problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure, Science News said.

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

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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