Clinical

Background: Exercise EKG is often integrated with stress echocardiography, but discordance with +EKG/–Echo has unknown significance.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Synopsis: 47,944 patients without known coronary artery disease underwent exercise stress echocardiogram (Echo) with stress EKG. Of those patients, 8.5% had +EKG/–Echo results, which was associated with annualized event rate of adverse cardiac events of 1.72%, which is higher than the 0.89% of patients with –EKG/–Echo results. This was most significant for composite major adverse cardiovascular events less than 30 days out, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 8.06 (95% confidence interval, 5.02-12.94). For major adverse cardiovascular events greater than 30 days out, HR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.53).

Bottom line: Patients with +EKG/–Echo findings appear to be at higher risk of adverse cardiac events, especially in the short term.

Citation: Daubert MA et al. Implications of abnormal exercise electrocardiography with normal stress echocardiography. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6958.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Exercise EKG is often integrated with stress echocardiography, but discordance with +EKG/–Echo has unknown significance.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Synopsis: 47,944 patients without known coronary artery disease underwent exercise stress echocardiogram (Echo) with stress EKG. Of those patients, 8.5% had +EKG/–Echo results, which was associated with annualized event rate of adverse cardiac events of 1.72%, which is higher than the 0.89% of patients with –EKG/–Echo results. This was most significant for composite major adverse cardiovascular events less than 30 days out, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 8.06 (95% confidence interval, 5.02-12.94). For major adverse cardiovascular events greater than 30 days out, HR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.53).

Bottom line: Patients with +EKG/–Echo findings appear to be at higher risk of adverse cardiac events, especially in the short term.

Citation: Daubert MA et al. Implications of abnormal exercise electrocardiography with normal stress echocardiography. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6958.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Exercise EKG is often integrated with stress echocardiography, but discordance with +EKG/–Echo has unknown significance.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Synopsis: 47,944 patients without known coronary artery disease underwent exercise stress echocardiogram (Echo) with stress EKG. Of those patients, 8.5% had +EKG/–Echo results, which was associated with annualized event rate of adverse cardiac events of 1.72%, which is higher than the 0.89% of patients with –EKG/–Echo results. This was most significant for composite major adverse cardiovascular events less than 30 days out, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 8.06 (95% confidence interval, 5.02-12.94). For major adverse cardiovascular events greater than 30 days out, HR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.53).

Bottom line: Patients with +EKG/–Echo findings appear to be at higher risk of adverse cardiac events, especially in the short term.

Citation: Daubert MA et al. Implications of abnormal exercise electrocardiography with normal stress echocardiography. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6958.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
 

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
 

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
 

Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.

Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.

Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.

“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
 

Links between diabetes and COVID-19

There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.

It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.

Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m²; 87% were Hispanic.

Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
 

Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose

Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.

Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.

COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.

The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
 

Aggressive treatment needed

Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.

“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”

Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.

“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”

Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.

Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.

Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.

Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.

“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
 

Links between diabetes and COVID-19

There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.

It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.

Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m²; 87% were Hispanic.

Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
 

Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose

Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.

Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.

COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.

The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
 

Aggressive treatment needed

Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.

“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”

Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.

“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”

Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.

Unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose levels are linked to more severe COVID-19 and worse rates of recovery, according to results of a retrospective study.

Patients not managing their diabetes with medication had more severe COVID-19 and length of hospitalization, compared with those who were taking medication, investigator Sudip Bajpeyi, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In addition, patients with higher blood glucose levels had more severe COVID-19 and longer hospital stays.

Those findings underscore the need to assess, monitor, and control blood glucose, especially in vulnerable populations, said Dr. Bajpeyi, director of the Metabolic, Nutrition, and Exercise Research Laboratory in the University of Texas, El Paso, who added that nearly 90% of the study subjects were Hispanic.

“As public health decisions are made, we think fasting blood glucose should be considered in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” he said in a press conference.
 

Links between diabetes and COVID-19

There are now many reports in medical literature that link diabetes to increased risk of COVID-19 severity, according to Ali Mossayebi, a master’s student who worked on the study. However, there are fewer studies that have looked specifically at the implications of poor diabetes management or acute glycemic control, the investigators said.

It’s known that poorly controlled diabetes can have severe health consequences, including higher risks for life-threatening comorbidities, they added.

Their retrospective study focused on medical records from 364 patients with COVID-19 admitted to a medical center in El Paso. Their mean age was 60 years, and their mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m²; 87% were Hispanic.

Acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting blood glucose at the time of hospitalization, while chronic glycemic control was assessed by hemoglobin A1c, the investigators said. Severity of COVID-19 was measured with the Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), which is based on the patient’s respiratory rate, blood pressure, and mental status.
 

Impact of unmanaged diabetes and high blood glucose

Severity of COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay were significantly greater in patients with unmanaged diabetes, as compared with those who reported that they managed their diabetes with medication, Dr. Bajpeyi and coinvestigators found.

Among patients with unmanaged diabetes, the mean qSOFA score was 0.22, as compared with 0.44 for patients with managed diabetes. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.8 days for patients with unmanaged diabetes and 8.2 days for those with medication-managed diabetes, according to the abstract.

COVID-19 severity and hospital stay length were highest among patients with acute glycemia, the investigators further reported in an electronic poster that was part of the ADA meeting proceedings.

The mean qSOFA score was about 0.6 for patients with blood glucose levels of at least 126 mg/dL and A1c below 6.5%, and roughly 0.2 for those with normal blood glucose and normal A1c. Similarly, duration of hospital stay was significantly higher for patients with high blood glucose and A1c as compared with those with normal blood glucose and A1c.
 

Aggressive treatment needed

Findings of this study are in line with previous research showing that in-hospital hyperglycemia is a common and important marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality, with or without diabetes, according to Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, FACE, medical chair of the hospital diabetes task force at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.

“These patients need aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia, regardless of the diagnosis of diabetes or A1c value,” said Dr. Galindo, who was not involved in the study. “They also need outpatient follow-up after discharge, because they may develop diabetes soon after.”

Follow-up within is important because roughly 30% of patients with stress hyperglycemia (increases in blood glucose during an acute illness) will develop diabetes within a year, according to Dr. Galindo.

“We do not know in COVID-10 patients if it is only 30%,” he said, “Our thinking in our group is that it’s probably higher.”

Dr. Bajpeyi and coauthors reported no disclosures. Dr. Galindo reported disclosures related to Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Valeritas, and Dexcom.

The most comprehensive molecular study to date of brain tissue from people who died of COVID-19 provides clear evidence that SARS-CoV-2 causes profound molecular changes in the brain, despite no molecular trace of the virus in brain tissue.

“The signature the virus leaves in the brain speaks of strong inflammation and disrupted brain circuits and resembles signatures the field has observed in Alzheimer’s or other neurodegenerative diseases,” senior author Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

The study was published online June 21 in Nature.
 

Signs of distress

“We know that up to a third of SARS-CoV-2-infected people show brain symptoms including brain fog, memory problems, and fatigue, and a growing number of people have such symptoms long after they [have] seemingly recovered from virus infection,” said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

“However, we have very little understanding of how the virus causes these symptoms and what its effects are on the brain at a molecular level,” he added.

Using single-cell RNA sequencing, the researchers profiled the transcriptomes of 65,309 nuclei isolated from frontal cortex and choroid plexus samples from eight patients who died of COVID-19 and 14 controls who died of other causes.

There was no molecular evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in brain tissue samples from the patients who died of COVID-19.

Yet, “we were very surprised to learn that no matter which type of cell we studied (different types of nerve cells, immune cells, or different support cells in the brain) there were prominent changes” compared with brain tissue samples from controls who died of other causes, said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

The changes in the COVID-19 brains showed signatures of inflammation, abnormal nerve cell communication, and chronic neurodegeneration.

“Across cell types, COVID-19 perturbations overlap with those in chronic brain disorders and reside in genetic variants associated with cognition, schizophrenia, and depression,” the researchers report.

“Viral infection appears to trigger inflammatory responses throughout the body that may cause inflammatory signaling across the blood–brain barrier, which in turn could ‘trip off’ neuroinflammation in the brain,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

The findings may help explain the brain fog, fatigue, and other neurological and psychiatric symptoms of long COVID.

“While we studied only brains from people who died of COVID-19, we believe it is likely that similar, but hopefully weaker, signs of inflammation and chronic neurodegeneration will be found in COVID-19 survivors, especially those with chronic brain symptoms,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

This research was funded by the Nomis Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Nan Fung Life Sciences, the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute and the Stanford Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The most comprehensive molecular study to date of brain tissue from people who died of COVID-19 provides clear evidence that SARS-CoV-2 causes profound molecular changes in the brain, despite no molecular trace of the virus in brain tissue.

“The signature the virus leaves in the brain speaks of strong inflammation and disrupted brain circuits and resembles signatures the field has observed in Alzheimer’s or other neurodegenerative diseases,” senior author Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

The study was published online June 21 in Nature.
 

Signs of distress

“We know that up to a third of SARS-CoV-2-infected people show brain symptoms including brain fog, memory problems, and fatigue, and a growing number of people have such symptoms long after they [have] seemingly recovered from virus infection,” said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

“However, we have very little understanding of how the virus causes these symptoms and what its effects are on the brain at a molecular level,” he added.

Using single-cell RNA sequencing, the researchers profiled the transcriptomes of 65,309 nuclei isolated from frontal cortex and choroid plexus samples from eight patients who died of COVID-19 and 14 controls who died of other causes.

There was no molecular evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in brain tissue samples from the patients who died of COVID-19.

Yet, “we were very surprised to learn that no matter which type of cell we studied (different types of nerve cells, immune cells, or different support cells in the brain) there were prominent changes” compared with brain tissue samples from controls who died of other causes, said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

The changes in the COVID-19 brains showed signatures of inflammation, abnormal nerve cell communication, and chronic neurodegeneration.

“Across cell types, COVID-19 perturbations overlap with those in chronic brain disorders and reside in genetic variants associated with cognition, schizophrenia, and depression,” the researchers report.

“Viral infection appears to trigger inflammatory responses throughout the body that may cause inflammatory signaling across the blood–brain barrier, which in turn could ‘trip off’ neuroinflammation in the brain,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

The findings may help explain the brain fog, fatigue, and other neurological and psychiatric symptoms of long COVID.

“While we studied only brains from people who died of COVID-19, we believe it is likely that similar, but hopefully weaker, signs of inflammation and chronic neurodegeneration will be found in COVID-19 survivors, especially those with chronic brain symptoms,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

This research was funded by the Nomis Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Nan Fung Life Sciences, the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute and the Stanford Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The most comprehensive molecular study to date of brain tissue from people who died of COVID-19 provides clear evidence that SARS-CoV-2 causes profound molecular changes in the brain, despite no molecular trace of the virus in brain tissue.

“The signature the virus leaves in the brain speaks of strong inflammation and disrupted brain circuits and resembles signatures the field has observed in Alzheimer’s or other neurodegenerative diseases,” senior author Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

The study was published online June 21 in Nature.
 

Signs of distress

“We know that up to a third of SARS-CoV-2-infected people show brain symptoms including brain fog, memory problems, and fatigue, and a growing number of people have such symptoms long after they [have] seemingly recovered from virus infection,” said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

“However, we have very little understanding of how the virus causes these symptoms and what its effects are on the brain at a molecular level,” he added.

Using single-cell RNA sequencing, the researchers profiled the transcriptomes of 65,309 nuclei isolated from frontal cortex and choroid plexus samples from eight patients who died of COVID-19 and 14 controls who died of other causes.

There was no molecular evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in brain tissue samples from the patients who died of COVID-19.

Yet, “we were very surprised to learn that no matter which type of cell we studied (different types of nerve cells, immune cells, or different support cells in the brain) there were prominent changes” compared with brain tissue samples from controls who died of other causes, said Dr. Wyss-Coray.

The changes in the COVID-19 brains showed signatures of inflammation, abnormal nerve cell communication, and chronic neurodegeneration.

“Across cell types, COVID-19 perturbations overlap with those in chronic brain disorders and reside in genetic variants associated with cognition, schizophrenia, and depression,” the researchers report.

“Viral infection appears to trigger inflammatory responses throughout the body that may cause inflammatory signaling across the blood–brain barrier, which in turn could ‘trip off’ neuroinflammation in the brain,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

The findings may help explain the brain fog, fatigue, and other neurological and psychiatric symptoms of long COVID.

“While we studied only brains from people who died of COVID-19, we believe it is likely that similar, but hopefully weaker, signs of inflammation and chronic neurodegeneration will be found in COVID-19 survivors, especially those with chronic brain symptoms,” Dr. Wyss-Coray said.

This research was funded by the Nomis Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Nan Fung Life Sciences, the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute and the Stanford Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Recent studies have shown that the level of proteinuria increases after AKI. It is not yet shown if this increases risk of kidney disease progression.

Episodes of AKI were also associated with progression, but this is severely attenuated once adjusted for ACR, eGFR, and traditional CKD risk factors. This suggests more routine quantification of proteinuria after AKI for better risk stratification.

Bottom line: Posthospitalization ACR predicts progression of kidney disease.

Citation: Hsu CY et al. Post–acute kidney injury proteinuria and subsequent kidney disease progression. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6390.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Recent studies have shown that the level of proteinuria increases after AKI. It is not yet shown if this increases risk of kidney disease progression.

Episodes of AKI were also associated with progression, but this is severely attenuated once adjusted for ACR, eGFR, and traditional CKD risk factors. This suggests more routine quantification of proteinuria after AKI for better risk stratification.

Bottom line: Posthospitalization ACR predicts progression of kidney disease.

Citation: Hsu CY et al. Post–acute kidney injury proteinuria and subsequent kidney disease progression. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6390.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Recent studies have shown that the level of proteinuria increases after AKI. It is not yet shown if this increases risk of kidney disease progression.

Episodes of AKI were also associated with progression, but this is severely attenuated once adjusted for ACR, eGFR, and traditional CKD risk factors. This suggests more routine quantification of proteinuria after AKI for better risk stratification.

Bottom line: Posthospitalization ACR predicts progression of kidney disease.

Citation: Hsu CY et al. Post–acute kidney injury proteinuria and subsequent kidney disease progression. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6390.

Dr. Ho is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

The American College of Gastroenterology has issued new guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection that now include roles for fecal microbial transplant (FMT), combination testing, and bezlotoxumab.

The ACG’s previous guidelines on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of what was then still called Clostridium difficile were published in 2013. Since then, the organism’s name changed to Clostridioides difficile, and that’s just the beginning of the changes reflected in the scientific literature, wrote lead author Colleen R. Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues.

“Other developments include the increased recognition of diagnostic challenges in the era of nucleic acid amplification–based testing, new therapeutic options for treatment and prevention of recurrence, and increasing evidence to support fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in recurrent and severe infection,” the authors said.

The guidelines, published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, include 23 graded recommendations addressing issues of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prevention of recurrence, and guidance for special populations in the management of C. difficile infection (CDI).
 

New faces among familiar ones

In terms of diagnosis, the new guidelines recommend using both a highly sensitive testing modality and a highly specific one to help distinguish colonization from active infection. Specifically, the authors recommend that stool is first tested using a highly sensitive test, either nucleic acid amplification testing or glutamate dehydrogenase, followed by an enzyme immunoassays for its high specificity.

Changes to treatment recommendations include the initial use of oral vancomycin or oral fidaxomicin for cases of nonsevere CDI. Oral metronidazole may be considered for initial nonsevere CDI in low-risk patients, the authors noted. The evidence is strong for the continued recommendations of vancomycin (125 mg four times daily for 10 days) and fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily for 10 days) for patients with severe CDI. For patients with fulminant CDI, the recommendations call for medical therapy including volume resuscitation and oral vancomycin, although combination therapy with parenteral metronidazole may be considered despite the very low quality of evidence.

A notable update to the guidelines is the recommendation of fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for both severe and fulminant CDI cases that are resistant to antibiotics and to prevent recurrence in at-risk patients. Although the quality of evidence is ranked as low, the recommendation is strong, the authors wrote. “Beyond improved cure rates, FMT may result in decreased rates of CDI-related colectomy and sepsis and may offer survival benefit in this critically ill patient population.” However, most patients in studies of FMT required multiple treatments in combination with anti-CDI antibiotics.

Other recommendations to prevent recurrence include oral vancomycin prophylaxis during the subsequent use of systemic antibiotics in patients with a history of CDI. The guidelines also recommend bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in high-risk patients, and advise against discontinuing antisecretory therapy in CDI patients if there is an appropriate indication for use.

Based on the lack of quality evidence, the guidelines recommend against the use of probiotics for preventing CDI in patients being treated with antibiotics and for prevention of recurrent infection.
 

Special populations

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the guidelines recommend C. difficile testing when these individuals present with acute flares and diarrhea, and the use of vancomycin for treatment. In addition, the authors strongly recommended FMT for recurrent CDI in these patients. For pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding patients with CDI, the guidelines recommend vancomycin, and either vancomycin or fidaxomicin may be used for treating CDI in immunocompromised patients, the authors noted.

The updated guidelines are designed to complement those issued by the Infections Disease Society of America and Society of Healthcare Epidemiologists of America, the researchers noted.
 

Reflecting the research

The previous guidelines for C. difficile were issued in 2013, and much has changed since then in terms of epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Notably, diagnostic testing has “made leaps and bounds” and new treatments have become available that were not included in earlier guidelines, said Dr. Khanna. In particular, the new guidelines are recommending a two-step diagnostic assay; “the diagnostic algorithm has changed, and hopefully that will help us change practice” to identify active infection more quickly and efficiently.

Another important update is the recommendation of fidaxomicin as an option for initial nonfulminant CDI as an alternative to vancomycin, Dr. Khanna said, noting that metronidazole remains an option for low-risk patients. An additional change is the advice to use a different treatment for a second recurrent infection rather than repeating the initial treatment.  

The recommendation of bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients who are at high risk of recurrence is the first time this drug has appeared in major guidelines, Dr. Khanna observed.

The recommendation in support of fecal microbiota transplant is a key update to the management of CDI, including the guidance that the procedure can be repeated if necessary, he said.

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to fully understand the best testing algorithms for CDI,” Dr. Khanna explained. “More studies also are needed to show how FMT fully fits into the picture, and some current studies are looking at its potential earlier in the course of infection.”

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology and received no outside funding. Dr. Kelly disclosed serving as a site investigator of a clinical trial for Finch Therapeutics and is an unpaid clinical advisory board member for OpenBiome. Dr. Khanna has coauthored previous guidelines on C. difficile. He disclosed consulting relationships with Finch, GlaxoSmithKline, Jetson, ProbioTech, and Shire/Takeda, as well as research support from Rebiotix, Seres, and Vedanta.

The American College of Gastroenterology has issued new guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection that now include roles for fecal microbial transplant (FMT), combination testing, and bezlotoxumab.

The ACG’s previous guidelines on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of what was then still called Clostridium difficile were published in 2013. Since then, the organism’s name changed to Clostridioides difficile, and that’s just the beginning of the changes reflected in the scientific literature, wrote lead author Colleen R. Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues.

“Other developments include the increased recognition of diagnostic challenges in the era of nucleic acid amplification–based testing, new therapeutic options for treatment and prevention of recurrence, and increasing evidence to support fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in recurrent and severe infection,” the authors said.

The guidelines, published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, include 23 graded recommendations addressing issues of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prevention of recurrence, and guidance for special populations in the management of C. difficile infection (CDI).
 

New faces among familiar ones

In terms of diagnosis, the new guidelines recommend using both a highly sensitive testing modality and a highly specific one to help distinguish colonization from active infection. Specifically, the authors recommend that stool is first tested using a highly sensitive test, either nucleic acid amplification testing or glutamate dehydrogenase, followed by an enzyme immunoassays for its high specificity.

Changes to treatment recommendations include the initial use of oral vancomycin or oral fidaxomicin for cases of nonsevere CDI. Oral metronidazole may be considered for initial nonsevere CDI in low-risk patients, the authors noted. The evidence is strong for the continued recommendations of vancomycin (125 mg four times daily for 10 days) and fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily for 10 days) for patients with severe CDI. For patients with fulminant CDI, the recommendations call for medical therapy including volume resuscitation and oral vancomycin, although combination therapy with parenteral metronidazole may be considered despite the very low quality of evidence.

A notable update to the guidelines is the recommendation of fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for both severe and fulminant CDI cases that are resistant to antibiotics and to prevent recurrence in at-risk patients. Although the quality of evidence is ranked as low, the recommendation is strong, the authors wrote. “Beyond improved cure rates, FMT may result in decreased rates of CDI-related colectomy and sepsis and may offer survival benefit in this critically ill patient population.” However, most patients in studies of FMT required multiple treatments in combination with anti-CDI antibiotics.

Other recommendations to prevent recurrence include oral vancomycin prophylaxis during the subsequent use of systemic antibiotics in patients with a history of CDI. The guidelines also recommend bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in high-risk patients, and advise against discontinuing antisecretory therapy in CDI patients if there is an appropriate indication for use.

Based on the lack of quality evidence, the guidelines recommend against the use of probiotics for preventing CDI in patients being treated with antibiotics and for prevention of recurrent infection.
 

Special populations

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the guidelines recommend C. difficile testing when these individuals present with acute flares and diarrhea, and the use of vancomycin for treatment. In addition, the authors strongly recommended FMT for recurrent CDI in these patients. For pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding patients with CDI, the guidelines recommend vancomycin, and either vancomycin or fidaxomicin may be used for treating CDI in immunocompromised patients, the authors noted.

The updated guidelines are designed to complement those issued by the Infections Disease Society of America and Society of Healthcare Epidemiologists of America, the researchers noted.
 

Reflecting the research

The previous guidelines for C. difficile were issued in 2013, and much has changed since then in terms of epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Notably, diagnostic testing has “made leaps and bounds” and new treatments have become available that were not included in earlier guidelines, said Dr. Khanna. In particular, the new guidelines are recommending a two-step diagnostic assay; “the diagnostic algorithm has changed, and hopefully that will help us change practice” to identify active infection more quickly and efficiently.

Another important update is the recommendation of fidaxomicin as an option for initial nonfulminant CDI as an alternative to vancomycin, Dr. Khanna said, noting that metronidazole remains an option for low-risk patients. An additional change is the advice to use a different treatment for a second recurrent infection rather than repeating the initial treatment.  

The recommendation of bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients who are at high risk of recurrence is the first time this drug has appeared in major guidelines, Dr. Khanna observed.

The recommendation in support of fecal microbiota transplant is a key update to the management of CDI, including the guidance that the procedure can be repeated if necessary, he said.

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to fully understand the best testing algorithms for CDI,” Dr. Khanna explained. “More studies also are needed to show how FMT fully fits into the picture, and some current studies are looking at its potential earlier in the course of infection.”

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology and received no outside funding. Dr. Kelly disclosed serving as a site investigator of a clinical trial for Finch Therapeutics and is an unpaid clinical advisory board member for OpenBiome. Dr. Khanna has coauthored previous guidelines on C. difficile. He disclosed consulting relationships with Finch, GlaxoSmithKline, Jetson, ProbioTech, and Shire/Takeda, as well as research support from Rebiotix, Seres, and Vedanta.

The American College of Gastroenterology has issued new guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection that now include roles for fecal microbial transplant (FMT), combination testing, and bezlotoxumab.

The ACG’s previous guidelines on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of what was then still called Clostridium difficile were published in 2013. Since then, the organism’s name changed to Clostridioides difficile, and that’s just the beginning of the changes reflected in the scientific literature, wrote lead author Colleen R. Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues.

“Other developments include the increased recognition of diagnostic challenges in the era of nucleic acid amplification–based testing, new therapeutic options for treatment and prevention of recurrence, and increasing evidence to support fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in recurrent and severe infection,” the authors said.

The guidelines, published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, include 23 graded recommendations addressing issues of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prevention of recurrence, and guidance for special populations in the management of C. difficile infection (CDI).
 

New faces among familiar ones

In terms of diagnosis, the new guidelines recommend using both a highly sensitive testing modality and a highly specific one to help distinguish colonization from active infection. Specifically, the authors recommend that stool is first tested using a highly sensitive test, either nucleic acid amplification testing or glutamate dehydrogenase, followed by an enzyme immunoassays for its high specificity.

Changes to treatment recommendations include the initial use of oral vancomycin or oral fidaxomicin for cases of nonsevere CDI. Oral metronidazole may be considered for initial nonsevere CDI in low-risk patients, the authors noted. The evidence is strong for the continued recommendations of vancomycin (125 mg four times daily for 10 days) and fidaxomicin (200 mg twice daily for 10 days) for patients with severe CDI. For patients with fulminant CDI, the recommendations call for medical therapy including volume resuscitation and oral vancomycin, although combination therapy with parenteral metronidazole may be considered despite the very low quality of evidence.

A notable update to the guidelines is the recommendation of fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for both severe and fulminant CDI cases that are resistant to antibiotics and to prevent recurrence in at-risk patients. Although the quality of evidence is ranked as low, the recommendation is strong, the authors wrote. “Beyond improved cure rates, FMT may result in decreased rates of CDI-related colectomy and sepsis and may offer survival benefit in this critically ill patient population.” However, most patients in studies of FMT required multiple treatments in combination with anti-CDI antibiotics.

Other recommendations to prevent recurrence include oral vancomycin prophylaxis during the subsequent use of systemic antibiotics in patients with a history of CDI. The guidelines also recommend bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in high-risk patients, and advise against discontinuing antisecretory therapy in CDI patients if there is an appropriate indication for use.

Based on the lack of quality evidence, the guidelines recommend against the use of probiotics for preventing CDI in patients being treated with antibiotics and for prevention of recurrent infection.
 

Special populations

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the guidelines recommend C. difficile testing when these individuals present with acute flares and diarrhea, and the use of vancomycin for treatment. In addition, the authors strongly recommended FMT for recurrent CDI in these patients. For pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding patients with CDI, the guidelines recommend vancomycin, and either vancomycin or fidaxomicin may be used for treating CDI in immunocompromised patients, the authors noted.

The updated guidelines are designed to complement those issued by the Infections Disease Society of America and Society of Healthcare Epidemiologists of America, the researchers noted.
 

Reflecting the research

The previous guidelines for C. difficile were issued in 2013, and much has changed since then in terms of epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Notably, diagnostic testing has “made leaps and bounds” and new treatments have become available that were not included in earlier guidelines, said Dr. Khanna. In particular, the new guidelines are recommending a two-step diagnostic assay; “the diagnostic algorithm has changed, and hopefully that will help us change practice” to identify active infection more quickly and efficiently.

Another important update is the recommendation of fidaxomicin as an option for initial nonfulminant CDI as an alternative to vancomycin, Dr. Khanna said, noting that metronidazole remains an option for low-risk patients. An additional change is the advice to use a different treatment for a second recurrent infection rather than repeating the initial treatment.  

The recommendation of bezlotoxumab for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients who are at high risk of recurrence is the first time this drug has appeared in major guidelines, Dr. Khanna observed.

The recommendation in support of fecal microbiota transplant is a key update to the management of CDI, including the guidance that the procedure can be repeated if necessary, he said.

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to fully understand the best testing algorithms for CDI,” Dr. Khanna explained. “More studies also are needed to show how FMT fully fits into the picture, and some current studies are looking at its potential earlier in the course of infection.”

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology and received no outside funding. Dr. Kelly disclosed serving as a site investigator of a clinical trial for Finch Therapeutics and is an unpaid clinical advisory board member for OpenBiome. Dr. Khanna has coauthored previous guidelines on C. difficile. He disclosed consulting relationships with Finch, GlaxoSmithKline, Jetson, ProbioTech, and Shire/Takeda, as well as research support from Rebiotix, Seres, and Vedanta.

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

[email protected]

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

[email protected]

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

[email protected]