Mr. N, age 55, has a long, documented history of schizophrenia. His overall baseline functioning has been poor because he is socially isolated, does not work, and lives in subsidized housing paid for by the county where he lives. His psychosocial circumstances have limited his ability to afford or otherwise obtain nutritious food or participate in any type of regular exercise program. He has been maintained on olanzapine, 20 mg nightly, for the past 5 years. During the past year, his functioning and overall quality of life have declined even further after he was diagnosed with hypertension. Mr. N’s in-office blood pressure was 160/95 mm Hg (normal range: systolic blood pressure, 90 to 120 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure, 60 to 80 mm Hg). He says his primary care physician informed him that he is pre-diabetic after his hemoglobin A1c came back at 6.0 mg/dL (normal range <5.7 mg/dL) and his body mass index was 32 kg/m² (normal range 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m²). Currently, Mr. N’s psychiatric symptoms are stable, but his functional decline is now largely driven by metabolic parameters. Along with lifestyle changes and nonpharmacologic interventions, what else should you consider to help him?

In addition to positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms, schizophrenia is accompanied by disturbances in metabolism,¹ inflammatory markers,² and sleep/wake cycles.³ Current treatment strategies focus on addressing symptoms and functioning, but the metabolic and inflammatory targets that account for significant morbidity and mortality remain largely unaddressed.

Some patients with schizophrenia meet the criteria for metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions—including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension—that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Table 1⁴). Metabolic syndrome and its related consequences are a major barrier to the successful treatment of patients with schizophrenia, and lead to increased mortality. Druss et al⁵ found that individuals with significant mental illness died on average 8.2 years earlier than age-matched controls. The most common cause of death was cardiovascular disease (Table 2⁵).

“Off-label” prescribing has been used in an attempt to delay or treat emerging metabolic syndrome in individuals with schizophrenia. Unfortunately, comprehensive strategies with a uniform application in clinical settings remain elusive. In this article, we review 3 off-label agents—metformin, topiramate, and melatonin—that may be used to address weight gain and metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia.

Metformin

Metformin is an oral medication used to treat type 2 diabetes. It works by decreasing glucose absorption, suppressing gluconeogenesis in the liver, and increasing insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissues. It was FDA-approved for use in the United States in 1994. In addition to improving glucose homeostasis, metformin has also been associated with decreased body mass index (BMI), triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in individuals at risk for diabetes.⁶

Recent consensus guidelines suggest that metformin has sufficient evidence to support its clinical use for preventing or treating antipsychotic-induced weight gain.⁷ A meta-analysis that included >40 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found that metformin^8-11:

• reduces antipsychotic-induced weight gain (approximately 3 kg, up to 5 kg in patients with first-episode psychosis)
• reduces fasting glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin levels, and insulin resistance
• leads to a more favorable lipid profile (reduced triglycerides, LDL, and total cholesterol, and increased HDL).

Not surprisingly, metformin’s effects are augmented when used in conjunction with lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise), leading to further weight reductions of 1.5 kg and BMI reductions of 1.08 kg/m² when compared with metformin alone.¹¹ The mechanism underlying metformin’s attenuation of antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not fully understood, but preclinical studies suggest that it may prevent olanzapine-induced brown adipose tissue loss,^12,13 alter Wnt signaling (an assortment of signal transduction pathways important for glucose homeostasis and metabolism),¹³ and influence the gut microbiome.¹⁴

Continue to: Metformin is generally...

Metformin is generally well tolerated. Common adverse effects include diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain, which are generally transient and can be ameliorated by using the extended-release formulation and lower starting doses.¹⁵ The frequency of medication discontinuation was minimal and similar in patients receiving metformin vs placebo.^8,16 Despite these positive findings, most studies of metformin have had a follow-up of ≤24 weeks, and its long-term effects on antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic parameters remain unknown.

When prescribing metformin for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 500 mg twice daily.

Topiramate

Topiramate is FDA-approved for treating generalized tonic-clonic and complex partial seizures¹⁷ and for migraine prophylaxis. More recently, it has been used off-label for weight loss in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients. Topiramate’s proposed mechanism for weight loss is by decreasing plasma leptin levels and increasing plasma adiponectin. A recent literature review of 8 RCTS that included 336 patients who received second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and adjunctive placebo or topiramate (100 to 300 mg/d) found that patients who received topiramate lost a statistically significant 2.83 kg vs placebo.¹⁸ Several case studies confirm similar findings, showing that patients with schizophrenia lost 2 to 5 kg when started on topiramate along with an SGA.¹⁹ Importantly, weight loss has been observed both in patients started on topiramate prophylactically along with an SGA, and those who had been receiving SGAs for an extended period of time before starting topiramate.

Tolerability has been a concern in patients receiving topiramate. Frequent complaints include cognitive dulling, sedation, and coldness or tingling of the extremities. In a meta-analysis of topiramate, metformin, and other medications used to induce weight loss in patients receiving SGAs, Zhuo et al²⁰ found that topiramate was reported intolerable more frequently than other agents, although the difference was not statistically significant.

When prescribing topiramate for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 25 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Melatonin

Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is available over-the-counter and is frequently used to treat insomnia. Melatonin appears to have few adverse effects, is not habit-forming, and is inexpensive. It is a hormone produced primarily by the pineal gland, although it is also produced by many other cell types, including the skin, gut, bone marrow, thymus, and retina.^21,22 Melatonin is a highly conserved essential hormone²³ that acts via both G protein-coupled membrane bound receptors and nuclear receptors.^23-25 Its ability to function both intra- and extracellularly implies it has an essential role in maintaining homeostatic mechanisms. Melatonin’s putative mechanism of action may derive from its effects on circadian rhythms, which in turn affect systolic blood pressure, glycemic control, and oxidative stress. In rodents, pinealectomy led to the rapid development of hypertension and metabolic syndrome. Daily administration of melatonin²⁶ in these animals restored metabolism by decreasing abdominal fat and plasma leptin levels. These studies suggest that melatonin plays a central role in metabolism.

A recent study of patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 48) examined the effects of melatonin (3 mg/d) as an add-on treatment to olanzapine vs placebo.²⁷ Compared with those in the placebo group, participants in the melatonin group experienced a statistically significant decrease in body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and triglyceride levels.²⁷ In another study, the melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon was used in conjunction with SGAs.²⁸ Augmentation with ramelteon led to significantly lower rises in total cholesterol levels compared with placebo.²⁸

When recommending melatonin for a patient with schizophrenia, suggest that he/she begin by taking a starting dose of 3 mg nightly.

Weighing the options

Which medication to prescribe for a patient such as Mr. N would depend on the patient’s specific complaint/health target.

Weight gain or diabetes. If the patient’s primary concerns are avoiding weight gain or the development of diabetes, metformin is an excellent starting point.

Continue to: Migraines or desire to lose weight

Migraines or desire to lose weight. If the patient reports frequent migraines or a history of migraines, or if he/she is interested in weight loss, a trial of topiramate may be appropriate.

Sleep difficulties. If sleep is the patient’s primary concern, then adding melatonin might be a good first choice.

At this point, the available data points to metformin as the most efficacious medication in ameliorating some of the metabolic adverse effects associated with the long-term use of SGAs.^8-11 Comprehensive treatment of patients with schizophrenia should include addressing underlying metabolic issues not only to improve health outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality, but also to improve psychosocial functioning and quality of life.

Bottom Line

Preventing or treating metabolic syndrome is an important consideration in all patients with schizophrenia. Metformin, topiramate, and melatonin show some promise in helping ameliorate metabolic syndrome and its associated morbidity and mortality, and also may help improve patients’ functioning and quality of life.

Related Resources

• Mitchell AJ, Vancampfort D, Sweers K, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and metabolic abnormalities in schizophrenia and related disorders--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(2):306-318.
• Majeed MH, Khalil HA. Cardiovascular adverse effects of psychotropics: what to look for. Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(7):54-55
• Wake, LA, Balon R. Should psychiatrists prescribe nonpsychotropic medications? Current Psychiatry. 2019; 18(11):52-56.

Drug Brand Names

Metformin • Glucophage
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Topiramate • Topamax

Mr. N, age 55, has a long, documented history of schizophrenia. His overall baseline functioning has been poor because he is socially isolated, does not work, and lives in subsidized housing paid for by the county where he lives. His psychosocial circumstances have limited his ability to afford or otherwise obtain nutritious food or participate in any type of regular exercise program. He has been maintained on olanzapine, 20 mg nightly, for the past 5 years. During the past year, his functioning and overall quality of life have declined even further after he was diagnosed with hypertension. Mr. N’s in-office blood pressure was 160/95 mm Hg (normal range: systolic blood pressure, 90 to 120 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure, 60 to 80 mm Hg). He says his primary care physician informed him that he is pre-diabetic after his hemoglobin A1c came back at 6.0 mg/dL (normal range <5.7 mg/dL) and his body mass index was 32 kg/m² (normal range 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m²). Currently, Mr. N’s psychiatric symptoms are stable, but his functional decline is now largely driven by metabolic parameters. Along with lifestyle changes and nonpharmacologic interventions, what else should you consider to help him?

In addition to positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms, schizophrenia is accompanied by disturbances in metabolism,¹ inflammatory markers,² and sleep/wake cycles.³ Current treatment strategies focus on addressing symptoms and functioning, but the metabolic and inflammatory targets that account for significant morbidity and mortality remain largely unaddressed.

Some patients with schizophrenia meet the criteria for metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions—including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension—that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Table 1⁴). Metabolic syndrome and its related consequences are a major barrier to the successful treatment of patients with schizophrenia, and lead to increased mortality. Druss et al⁵ found that individuals with significant mental illness died on average 8.2 years earlier than age-matched controls. The most common cause of death was cardiovascular disease (Table 2⁵).

“Off-label” prescribing has been used in an attempt to delay or treat emerging metabolic syndrome in individuals with schizophrenia. Unfortunately, comprehensive strategies with a uniform application in clinical settings remain elusive. In this article, we review 3 off-label agents—metformin, topiramate, and melatonin—that may be used to address weight gain and metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia.

Metformin

Metformin is an oral medication used to treat type 2 diabetes. It works by decreasing glucose absorption, suppressing gluconeogenesis in the liver, and increasing insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissues. It was FDA-approved for use in the United States in 1994. In addition to improving glucose homeostasis, metformin has also been associated with decreased body mass index (BMI), triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in individuals at risk for diabetes.⁶

Recent consensus guidelines suggest that metformin has sufficient evidence to support its clinical use for preventing or treating antipsychotic-induced weight gain.⁷ A meta-analysis that included >40 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found that metformin^8-11:

• reduces antipsychotic-induced weight gain (approximately 3 kg, up to 5 kg in patients with first-episode psychosis)
• reduces fasting glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin levels, and insulin resistance
• leads to a more favorable lipid profile (reduced triglycerides, LDL, and total cholesterol, and increased HDL).

Not surprisingly, metformin’s effects are augmented when used in conjunction with lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise), leading to further weight reductions of 1.5 kg and BMI reductions of 1.08 kg/m² when compared with metformin alone.¹¹ The mechanism underlying metformin’s attenuation of antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not fully understood, but preclinical studies suggest that it may prevent olanzapine-induced brown adipose tissue loss,^12,13 alter Wnt signaling (an assortment of signal transduction pathways important for glucose homeostasis and metabolism),¹³ and influence the gut microbiome.¹⁴

Continue to: Metformin is generally...

Metformin is generally well tolerated. Common adverse effects include diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain, which are generally transient and can be ameliorated by using the extended-release formulation and lower starting doses.¹⁵ The frequency of medication discontinuation was minimal and similar in patients receiving metformin vs placebo.^8,16 Despite these positive findings, most studies of metformin have had a follow-up of ≤24 weeks, and its long-term effects on antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic parameters remain unknown.

When prescribing metformin for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 500 mg twice daily.

Topiramate

Topiramate is FDA-approved for treating generalized tonic-clonic and complex partial seizures¹⁷ and for migraine prophylaxis. More recently, it has been used off-label for weight loss in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients. Topiramate’s proposed mechanism for weight loss is by decreasing plasma leptin levels and increasing plasma adiponectin. A recent literature review of 8 RCTS that included 336 patients who received second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and adjunctive placebo or topiramate (100 to 300 mg/d) found that patients who received topiramate lost a statistically significant 2.83 kg vs placebo.¹⁸ Several case studies confirm similar findings, showing that patients with schizophrenia lost 2 to 5 kg when started on topiramate along with an SGA.¹⁹ Importantly, weight loss has been observed both in patients started on topiramate prophylactically along with an SGA, and those who had been receiving SGAs for an extended period of time before starting topiramate.

Tolerability has been a concern in patients receiving topiramate. Frequent complaints include cognitive dulling, sedation, and coldness or tingling of the extremities. In a meta-analysis of topiramate, metformin, and other medications used to induce weight loss in patients receiving SGAs, Zhuo et al²⁰ found that topiramate was reported intolerable more frequently than other agents, although the difference was not statistically significant.

When prescribing topiramate for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 25 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Melatonin

Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is available over-the-counter and is frequently used to treat insomnia. Melatonin appears to have few adverse effects, is not habit-forming, and is inexpensive. It is a hormone produced primarily by the pineal gland, although it is also produced by many other cell types, including the skin, gut, bone marrow, thymus, and retina.^21,22 Melatonin is a highly conserved essential hormone²³ that acts via both G protein-coupled membrane bound receptors and nuclear receptors.^23-25 Its ability to function both intra- and extracellularly implies it has an essential role in maintaining homeostatic mechanisms. Melatonin’s putative mechanism of action may derive from its effects on circadian rhythms, which in turn affect systolic blood pressure, glycemic control, and oxidative stress. In rodents, pinealectomy led to the rapid development of hypertension and metabolic syndrome. Daily administration of melatonin²⁶ in these animals restored metabolism by decreasing abdominal fat and plasma leptin levels. These studies suggest that melatonin plays a central role in metabolism.

A recent study of patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 48) examined the effects of melatonin (3 mg/d) as an add-on treatment to olanzapine vs placebo.²⁷ Compared with those in the placebo group, participants in the melatonin group experienced a statistically significant decrease in body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and triglyceride levels.²⁷ In another study, the melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon was used in conjunction with SGAs.²⁸ Augmentation with ramelteon led to significantly lower rises in total cholesterol levels compared with placebo.²⁸

When recommending melatonin for a patient with schizophrenia, suggest that he/she begin by taking a starting dose of 3 mg nightly.

Weighing the options

Which medication to prescribe for a patient such as Mr. N would depend on the patient’s specific complaint/health target.

Weight gain or diabetes. If the patient’s primary concerns are avoiding weight gain or the development of diabetes, metformin is an excellent starting point.

Continue to: Migraines or desire to lose weight

Migraines or desire to lose weight. If the patient reports frequent migraines or a history of migraines, or if he/she is interested in weight loss, a trial of topiramate may be appropriate.

Sleep difficulties. If sleep is the patient’s primary concern, then adding melatonin might be a good first choice.

At this point, the available data points to metformin as the most efficacious medication in ameliorating some of the metabolic adverse effects associated with the long-term use of SGAs.^8-11 Comprehensive treatment of patients with schizophrenia should include addressing underlying metabolic issues not only to improve health outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality, but also to improve psychosocial functioning and quality of life.

Bottom Line

Preventing or treating metabolic syndrome is an important consideration in all patients with schizophrenia. Metformin, topiramate, and melatonin show some promise in helping ameliorate metabolic syndrome and its associated morbidity and mortality, and also may help improve patients’ functioning and quality of life.

Related Resources

• Mitchell AJ, Vancampfort D, Sweers K, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and metabolic abnormalities in schizophrenia and related disorders--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(2):306-318.
• Majeed MH, Khalil HA. Cardiovascular adverse effects of psychotropics: what to look for. Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(7):54-55
• Wake, LA, Balon R. Should psychiatrists prescribe nonpsychotropic medications? Current Psychiatry. 2019; 18(11):52-56.

Drug Brand Names

Metformin • Glucophage
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Topiramate • Topamax

Mr. N, age 55, has a long, documented history of schizophrenia. His overall baseline functioning has been poor because he is socially isolated, does not work, and lives in subsidized housing paid for by the county where he lives. His psychosocial circumstances have limited his ability to afford or otherwise obtain nutritious food or participate in any type of regular exercise program. He has been maintained on olanzapine, 20 mg nightly, for the past 5 years. During the past year, his functioning and overall quality of life have declined even further after he was diagnosed with hypertension. Mr. N’s in-office blood pressure was 160/95 mm Hg (normal range: systolic blood pressure, 90 to 120 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure, 60 to 80 mm Hg). He says his primary care physician informed him that he is pre-diabetic after his hemoglobin A1c came back at 6.0 mg/dL (normal range <5.7 mg/dL) and his body mass index was 32 kg/m² (normal range 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m²). Currently, Mr. N’s psychiatric symptoms are stable, but his functional decline is now largely driven by metabolic parameters. Along with lifestyle changes and nonpharmacologic interventions, what else should you consider to help him?

In addition to positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms, schizophrenia is accompanied by disturbances in metabolism,¹ inflammatory markers,² and sleep/wake cycles.³ Current treatment strategies focus on addressing symptoms and functioning, but the metabolic and inflammatory targets that account for significant morbidity and mortality remain largely unaddressed.

Some patients with schizophrenia meet the criteria for metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions—including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension—that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Table 1⁴). Metabolic syndrome and its related consequences are a major barrier to the successful treatment of patients with schizophrenia, and lead to increased mortality. Druss et al⁵ found that individuals with significant mental illness died on average 8.2 years earlier than age-matched controls. The most common cause of death was cardiovascular disease (Table 2⁵).

“Off-label” prescribing has been used in an attempt to delay or treat emerging metabolic syndrome in individuals with schizophrenia. Unfortunately, comprehensive strategies with a uniform application in clinical settings remain elusive. In this article, we review 3 off-label agents—metformin, topiramate, and melatonin—that may be used to address weight gain and metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia.

Metformin

Metformin is an oral medication used to treat type 2 diabetes. It works by decreasing glucose absorption, suppressing gluconeogenesis in the liver, and increasing insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissues. It was FDA-approved for use in the United States in 1994. In addition to improving glucose homeostasis, metformin has also been associated with decreased body mass index (BMI), triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in individuals at risk for diabetes.⁶

Recent consensus guidelines suggest that metformin has sufficient evidence to support its clinical use for preventing or treating antipsychotic-induced weight gain.⁷ A meta-analysis that included >40 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found that metformin^8-11:

• reduces antipsychotic-induced weight gain (approximately 3 kg, up to 5 kg in patients with first-episode psychosis)
• reduces fasting glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin levels, and insulin resistance
• leads to a more favorable lipid profile (reduced triglycerides, LDL, and total cholesterol, and increased HDL).

Not surprisingly, metformin’s effects are augmented when used in conjunction with lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise), leading to further weight reductions of 1.5 kg and BMI reductions of 1.08 kg/m² when compared with metformin alone.¹¹ The mechanism underlying metformin’s attenuation of antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not fully understood, but preclinical studies suggest that it may prevent olanzapine-induced brown adipose tissue loss,^12,13 alter Wnt signaling (an assortment of signal transduction pathways important for glucose homeostasis and metabolism),¹³ and influence the gut microbiome.¹⁴

Continue to: Metformin is generally...

Metformin is generally well tolerated. Common adverse effects include diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain, which are generally transient and can be ameliorated by using the extended-release formulation and lower starting doses.¹⁵ The frequency of medication discontinuation was minimal and similar in patients receiving metformin vs placebo.^8,16 Despite these positive findings, most studies of metformin have had a follow-up of ≤24 weeks, and its long-term effects on antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic parameters remain unknown.

When prescribing metformin for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 500 mg twice daily.

Topiramate

Topiramate is FDA-approved for treating generalized tonic-clonic and complex partial seizures¹⁷ and for migraine prophylaxis. More recently, it has been used off-label for weight loss in both psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients. Topiramate’s proposed mechanism for weight loss is by decreasing plasma leptin levels and increasing plasma adiponectin. A recent literature review of 8 RCTS that included 336 patients who received second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and adjunctive placebo or topiramate (100 to 300 mg/d) found that patients who received topiramate lost a statistically significant 2.83 kg vs placebo.¹⁸ Several case studies confirm similar findings, showing that patients with schizophrenia lost 2 to 5 kg when started on topiramate along with an SGA.¹⁹ Importantly, weight loss has been observed both in patients started on topiramate prophylactically along with an SGA, and those who had been receiving SGAs for an extended period of time before starting topiramate.

Tolerability has been a concern in patients receiving topiramate. Frequent complaints include cognitive dulling, sedation, and coldness or tingling of the extremities. In a meta-analysis of topiramate, metformin, and other medications used to induce weight loss in patients receiving SGAs, Zhuo et al²⁰ found that topiramate was reported intolerable more frequently than other agents, although the difference was not statistically significant.

When prescribing topiramate for a patient with schizophrenia, consider a starting dose of 25 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Melatonin

Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is available over-the-counter and is frequently used to treat insomnia. Melatonin appears to have few adverse effects, is not habit-forming, and is inexpensive. It is a hormone produced primarily by the pineal gland, although it is also produced by many other cell types, including the skin, gut, bone marrow, thymus, and retina.^21,22 Melatonin is a highly conserved essential hormone²³ that acts via both G protein-coupled membrane bound receptors and nuclear receptors.^23-25 Its ability to function both intra- and extracellularly implies it has an essential role in maintaining homeostatic mechanisms. Melatonin’s putative mechanism of action may derive from its effects on circadian rhythms, which in turn affect systolic blood pressure, glycemic control, and oxidative stress. In rodents, pinealectomy led to the rapid development of hypertension and metabolic syndrome. Daily administration of melatonin²⁶ in these animals restored metabolism by decreasing abdominal fat and plasma leptin levels. These studies suggest that melatonin plays a central role in metabolism.

A recent study of patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 48) examined the effects of melatonin (3 mg/d) as an add-on treatment to olanzapine vs placebo.²⁷ Compared with those in the placebo group, participants in the melatonin group experienced a statistically significant decrease in body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and triglyceride levels.²⁷ In another study, the melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon was used in conjunction with SGAs.²⁸ Augmentation with ramelteon led to significantly lower rises in total cholesterol levels compared with placebo.²⁸

When recommending melatonin for a patient with schizophrenia, suggest that he/she begin by taking a starting dose of 3 mg nightly.

Weighing the options

Which medication to prescribe for a patient such as Mr. N would depend on the patient’s specific complaint/health target.

Weight gain or diabetes. If the patient’s primary concerns are avoiding weight gain or the development of diabetes, metformin is an excellent starting point.

Continue to: Migraines or desire to lose weight

Migraines or desire to lose weight. If the patient reports frequent migraines or a history of migraines, or if he/she is interested in weight loss, a trial of topiramate may be appropriate.

Sleep difficulties. If sleep is the patient’s primary concern, then adding melatonin might be a good first choice.

At this point, the available data points to metformin as the most efficacious medication in ameliorating some of the metabolic adverse effects associated with the long-term use of SGAs.^8-11 Comprehensive treatment of patients with schizophrenia should include addressing underlying metabolic issues not only to improve health outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality, but also to improve psychosocial functioning and quality of life.

Bottom Line

Preventing or treating metabolic syndrome is an important consideration in all patients with schizophrenia. Metformin, topiramate, and melatonin show some promise in helping ameliorate metabolic syndrome and its associated morbidity and mortality, and also may help improve patients’ functioning and quality of life.

Related Resources

• Mitchell AJ, Vancampfort D, Sweers K, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and metabolic abnormalities in schizophrenia and related disorders--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(2):306-318.
• Majeed MH, Khalil HA. Cardiovascular adverse effects of psychotropics: what to look for. Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(7):54-55
• Wake, LA, Balon R. Should psychiatrists prescribe nonpsychotropic medications? Current Psychiatry. 2019; 18(11):52-56.

Drug Brand Names

Metformin • Glucophage
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Topiramate • Topamax

COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief

COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief

COVID-19 numbers again are increasing dramatically. Community infection rates have nearly doubled, and hospitals and health care workers are stretched beyond their limits. It is difficult not to feel anger about how poorly this pandemic was managed (mismanaged) by so many officials in charge and by a large segment of our population who still refuse protective actions to limit spread. While politics and ideology continue to cost American lives, scientific firepower will emerge as our saving grace.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGA
Editor in Chief

“How much longer?” As a kid, I can remember the long holiday car ride with my parents from my home in Annapolis, Md., to Upstate New York where my grandparents lived. At the time, the ride felt like an eternity: endless miles of frozen landscape, limited food, and a brother who constantly crossed over the invisible line that was my side of the car.

We made our parents crazy asking, “how much longer?” every few minutes. This was the late 1970s, with no GPS or Google Maps to give you arrival times to the minute, traffic warnings, or reroutes when the inevitable delays occurred. We just plowed ahead, and my parents’ answer was always something vague like, “in a few hours” or “we’re about halfway through.” They did not know when we’d arrive with certainty either.

We at SHM have that same feeling about the pandemic. How much longer? No one can tell us when the COVID-19 threat will abate. The experts’ answers are understandably vague, and the tools for forecasting are non-existent. Months? That is the best we know for now.

At SHM, we believe we will make it through this journey by adapting to roadblocks, providing tools for success to our professional community, and identifying opportunities for us to connect with each other, even if that means virtually.

Like the rest of the planet, the spring of 2020 hit SHM with a shock. Hospital Medicine 2020 (HM20) in San Diego was shaping up to be the largest Annual Conference SHM ever had, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020 (PHM20) conference was well planned and expected to be a huge success, regional SHM chapters were meeting (and growing), and membership was thriving. I was transitioning out of my roles at Johns Hopkins and looking forward to my new role as CEO of SHM. All in all, March 2020 began with a fantastic outlook.

Wow, what a difference a few weeks made. We watched as the pandemic spread across regions of the country, concerned for the wellbeing of our patients and our hospitalists. We saw how our members were at the forefront of patient care during this crisis and understood that SHM had to adapt rapidly to meet their needs in real time.

By May, SHM had canceled HM20, Chapter activity was halted, PHM20 was on its way to being canceled, SHM committee work was put on hold, and I was spending my last few months at Hopkins as the chief medical officer at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (which we got up and running in less than a month)! Whew.

But just like my dad could pivot our 1970s Chevy station wagon around a traffic jam in a flash, so too did SHM leadership start navigating around the COVID-19 landscape. As soon as HM20 was canceled, SHM immediately began planning for a virtual offering in August. We had hoped to attract at least 100 attendees and we were thrilled to have more than 1,000! PHM20 was switched from an in-person to a virtual meeting with 634 attendees. We launched numerous COVID-19 webinars and made our clinical and educational offerings open access. Our Public Policy Committee was active around both COVID-19 and hospitalist-related topics – immigration, telehealth, wellbeing, and financial impacts, to name a few. (And I even met with the POTUS & advocated for PPE.) The Journal of Hospital Medicine worked with authors to get important publications out at record speed. And of course, The Hospitalist connected all of us to our professional leaders and experts.

By the fall of 2020, SHM had actively adjusted to the “new normal” of this pandemic: SHM staff have settled into their new “work from home” environments, SHM Chapters are connecting members in the virtual world, SHM’s 2021 Annual Conference will be all virtual – rebranded as “SHM Converge” – and the State of Hospital Medicine Report (our every-other-year source for trends in hospital medicine) now has a COVID-19 supplement, which was developed at lightning speed. Even our SHM Board of Directors is meeting virtually! All this while advancing the routine work at SHM, which never faltered. Our work on resources for quality improvement, the opioid epidemic, wellbeing, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), leadership, professional development, advocacy, and so much more is as active as ever.

I don’t know how much longer we have on this very long pandemic journey, so I’ll use my father’s answer of “we’re about halfway through.” We have been immersed in it for months already, with months still ahead. But regardless of the upcoming twists and turns COVID-19 forces you, our patients, and our larger society to take, SHM is ready to change direction faster than a 1970s Chevy. The SHM staff, leadership, and members will be sure that hospitalists receive the tools to navigate these unprecedented times. Our patients need our skills to get through this as safely as possible. While we may not be able to tell them “how much longer,” we can certainly be prepared for the long road ahead as we begin 2021.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“How much longer?” As a kid, I can remember the long holiday car ride with my parents from my home in Annapolis, Md., to Upstate New York where my grandparents lived. At the time, the ride felt like an eternity: endless miles of frozen landscape, limited food, and a brother who constantly crossed over the invisible line that was my side of the car.

We made our parents crazy asking, “how much longer?” every few minutes. This was the late 1970s, with no GPS or Google Maps to give you arrival times to the minute, traffic warnings, or reroutes when the inevitable delays occurred. We just plowed ahead, and my parents’ answer was always something vague like, “in a few hours” or “we’re about halfway through.” They did not know when we’d arrive with certainty either.

We at SHM have that same feeling about the pandemic. How much longer? No one can tell us when the COVID-19 threat will abate. The experts’ answers are understandably vague, and the tools for forecasting are non-existent. Months? That is the best we know for now.

At SHM, we believe we will make it through this journey by adapting to roadblocks, providing tools for success to our professional community, and identifying opportunities for us to connect with each other, even if that means virtually.

Like the rest of the planet, the spring of 2020 hit SHM with a shock. Hospital Medicine 2020 (HM20) in San Diego was shaping up to be the largest Annual Conference SHM ever had, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020 (PHM20) conference was well planned and expected to be a huge success, regional SHM chapters were meeting (and growing), and membership was thriving. I was transitioning out of my roles at Johns Hopkins and looking forward to my new role as CEO of SHM. All in all, March 2020 began with a fantastic outlook.

Wow, what a difference a few weeks made. We watched as the pandemic spread across regions of the country, concerned for the wellbeing of our patients and our hospitalists. We saw how our members were at the forefront of patient care during this crisis and understood that SHM had to adapt rapidly to meet their needs in real time.

By May, SHM had canceled HM20, Chapter activity was halted, PHM20 was on its way to being canceled, SHM committee work was put on hold, and I was spending my last few months at Hopkins as the chief medical officer at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (which we got up and running in less than a month)! Whew.

But just like my dad could pivot our 1970s Chevy station wagon around a traffic jam in a flash, so too did SHM leadership start navigating around the COVID-19 landscape. As soon as HM20 was canceled, SHM immediately began planning for a virtual offering in August. We had hoped to attract at least 100 attendees and we were thrilled to have more than 1,000! PHM20 was switched from an in-person to a virtual meeting with 634 attendees. We launched numerous COVID-19 webinars and made our clinical and educational offerings open access. Our Public Policy Committee was active around both COVID-19 and hospitalist-related topics – immigration, telehealth, wellbeing, and financial impacts, to name a few. (And I even met with the POTUS & advocated for PPE.) The Journal of Hospital Medicine worked with authors to get important publications out at record speed. And of course, The Hospitalist connected all of us to our professional leaders and experts.

By the fall of 2020, SHM had actively adjusted to the “new normal” of this pandemic: SHM staff have settled into their new “work from home” environments, SHM Chapters are connecting members in the virtual world, SHM’s 2021 Annual Conference will be all virtual – rebranded as “SHM Converge” – and the State of Hospital Medicine Report (our every-other-year source for trends in hospital medicine) now has a COVID-19 supplement, which was developed at lightning speed. Even our SHM Board of Directors is meeting virtually! All this while advancing the routine work at SHM, which never faltered. Our work on resources for quality improvement, the opioid epidemic, wellbeing, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), leadership, professional development, advocacy, and so much more is as active as ever.

I don’t know how much longer we have on this very long pandemic journey, so I’ll use my father’s answer of “we’re about halfway through.” We have been immersed in it for months already, with months still ahead. But regardless of the upcoming twists and turns COVID-19 forces you, our patients, and our larger society to take, SHM is ready to change direction faster than a 1970s Chevy. The SHM staff, leadership, and members will be sure that hospitalists receive the tools to navigate these unprecedented times. Our patients need our skills to get through this as safely as possible. While we may not be able to tell them “how much longer,” we can certainly be prepared for the long road ahead as we begin 2021.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“How much longer?” As a kid, I can remember the long holiday car ride with my parents from my home in Annapolis, Md., to Upstate New York where my grandparents lived. At the time, the ride felt like an eternity: endless miles of frozen landscape, limited food, and a brother who constantly crossed over the invisible line that was my side of the car.

We made our parents crazy asking, “how much longer?” every few minutes. This was the late 1970s, with no GPS or Google Maps to give you arrival times to the minute, traffic warnings, or reroutes when the inevitable delays occurred. We just plowed ahead, and my parents’ answer was always something vague like, “in a few hours” or “we’re about halfway through.” They did not know when we’d arrive with certainty either.

We at SHM have that same feeling about the pandemic. How much longer? No one can tell us when the COVID-19 threat will abate. The experts’ answers are understandably vague, and the tools for forecasting are non-existent. Months? That is the best we know for now.

At SHM, we believe we will make it through this journey by adapting to roadblocks, providing tools for success to our professional community, and identifying opportunities for us to connect with each other, even if that means virtually.

Like the rest of the planet, the spring of 2020 hit SHM with a shock. Hospital Medicine 2020 (HM20) in San Diego was shaping up to be the largest Annual Conference SHM ever had, the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2020 (PHM20) conference was well planned and expected to be a huge success, regional SHM chapters were meeting (and growing), and membership was thriving. I was transitioning out of my roles at Johns Hopkins and looking forward to my new role as CEO of SHM. All in all, March 2020 began with a fantastic outlook.

Wow, what a difference a few weeks made. We watched as the pandemic spread across regions of the country, concerned for the wellbeing of our patients and our hospitalists. We saw how our members were at the forefront of patient care during this crisis and understood that SHM had to adapt rapidly to meet their needs in real time.

By May, SHM had canceled HM20, Chapter activity was halted, PHM20 was on its way to being canceled, SHM committee work was put on hold, and I was spending my last few months at Hopkins as the chief medical officer at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (which we got up and running in less than a month)! Whew.

But just like my dad could pivot our 1970s Chevy station wagon around a traffic jam in a flash, so too did SHM leadership start navigating around the COVID-19 landscape. As soon as HM20 was canceled, SHM immediately began planning for a virtual offering in August. We had hoped to attract at least 100 attendees and we were thrilled to have more than 1,000! PHM20 was switched from an in-person to a virtual meeting with 634 attendees. We launched numerous COVID-19 webinars and made our clinical and educational offerings open access. Our Public Policy Committee was active around both COVID-19 and hospitalist-related topics – immigration, telehealth, wellbeing, and financial impacts, to name a few. (And I even met with the POTUS & advocated for PPE.) The Journal of Hospital Medicine worked with authors to get important publications out at record speed. And of course, The Hospitalist connected all of us to our professional leaders and experts.

By the fall of 2020, SHM had actively adjusted to the “new normal” of this pandemic: SHM staff have settled into their new “work from home” environments, SHM Chapters are connecting members in the virtual world, SHM’s 2021 Annual Conference will be all virtual – rebranded as “SHM Converge” – and the State of Hospital Medicine Report (our every-other-year source for trends in hospital medicine) now has a COVID-19 supplement, which was developed at lightning speed. Even our SHM Board of Directors is meeting virtually! All this while advancing the routine work at SHM, which never faltered. Our work on resources for quality improvement, the opioid epidemic, wellbeing, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), leadership, professional development, advocacy, and so much more is as active as ever.

I don’t know how much longer we have on this very long pandemic journey, so I’ll use my father’s answer of “we’re about halfway through.” We have been immersed in it for months already, with months still ahead. But regardless of the upcoming twists and turns COVID-19 forces you, our patients, and our larger society to take, SHM is ready to change direction faster than a 1970s Chevy. The SHM staff, leadership, and members will be sure that hospitalists receive the tools to navigate these unprecedented times. Our patients need our skills to get through this as safely as possible. While we may not be able to tell them “how much longer,” we can certainly be prepared for the long road ahead as we begin 2021.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The interventional cardiology community is mourning the loss of Anthony “Tony” Gershlick, MBBS, who died Nov. 20 of COVID-19. He was 69 years old.

Dr. Gershlick was a “talented, dedicated and much loved colleague,” reads a statement issued by the University of Leicester (England), where he was affiliated for more than 3 decades.

Dr. Gershlick, a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital and professor of interventional cardiology, University of Leicester, passed away in the intensive care unit of the hospital where he worked.

Nishan Canagarajah, PhD, president and vice-chancellor, University of Leicester, said Dr. Gershlick “left an indelible mark on the life of the University. He will be remembered with great affection by all and will be sorely missed.”

In 2017, Dr. Gershlick was honored with the inaugural British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Lifetime Achievement Career Award for his “outstanding contribution to the specialty of coronary intervention.”

Gershlick was a pioneer in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. He was the first UK cardiologist to implant a drug-eluting stent and a bioabsorbable stent, according to an article in the European Heart Journal.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gershlick had been involved in “practice-changing” research that changed the way patients are treated and led to national and international guidelines. He was the UK lead for more than 10 international trials, the university said.

“Tony was determined to push the boundaries of clinical care, to make a difference for his patients, and indeed, patients around the world,” said Philip Baker, DM, FMedSci, head of the College of Life Science, University of Leicester.

Andrew Furlong, medical director at the University Hospitals of Leicester, noted that Dr. Gershlick was “deeply committed to the training and development of junior doctors and registrars and known for his dedication to his field and his patients. He made a difference to many, many lives.”

According to the university, Dr. Gershlick had been working in non-COVID environments since April and was doing much of his work via virtual consultations. He took on cases from other consultants to help during the pandemic and had been working “tirelessly” to provide continuing care to cardiology patients.

The news of Dr. Gershlick’s passing prompted an outpouring of sadness and remembrances of him on Twitter.

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.