Infectious Diseases

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

People living with HIV who put on extra pounds and develop metabolic syndrome or related disorders linked in part to certain antiretroviral agents remain a concern today, even as the drugs used to suppress HIV infection have evolved over the decades.

Linkage of HIV treatment with lipodystrophy and insulin resistance or diabetes began in the 1990s with protease inhibitors (Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;30[suppl 2]:s135-42). Several reports over the years also tied any form of effective antiretroviral therapy to weight gain in HIV patients (Antivir Ther. 2012;17[7]:1281-9). More recently, reports have rattled the HIV-treatment community by associating alarmingly high levels of weight gain with a useful and relatively new drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) – a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) approved for use in the United States in late 2016, as well as certain agents from an entirely different antiretroviral therapy (ART) class, the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Both TAF and the INSTIs have come to play major roles in the HIV-treatment landscape, despite relevant and concerning recent weight gain observations with these drugs, such as in a 2019 meta-analysis of eight trials with 5,680 treatment-naive patients who started ART during 2003-2015 (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 14;doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz999).

“Weight gain is clearly seen in studies of dolutegravir [DTG] or bictegravir [BTG] with TAF,” wrote W.D. Francois Venter, PhD and Andrew Hill, PhD in a recent published commentary on the topic (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun 1;7[6]:e389-400). Both DTG and BTG are INSTI class members.

“Excessive weight gain, defined as more than 10% over baseline, has recently been observed among people with HIV initiating or switching to regimens incorporating TAF, an INSTI, or both, particularly DTG,” wrote Jordan E. Lake, MD, an HIV specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, in a recent commentary posted online. Women and Black patients “are at even greater risk for excessive weight gain,” Dr. Lake added.

“In recent times, it has emerged that weight gain is more pronounced with the integrase inhibitor class of agents, especially dolutegravir and bictegravir, the so-called second-generation” INSTIs, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, a professor of clinical infection, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Liverpool, England. ”The effect is more pronounced in women and people of non-White ethnicity, and is of concern because of the associated potential risk of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, etc.,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

The unprecedented susceptibility to weight gain seen recently in non-White women may in part have resulted from the tendency of many earlier treatment trials to have cohorts comprised predominantly of White men, Dr. Venter noted in an interview.
 

Alarming weight gains reported

Perhaps the most eye-popping example of the potential for weight gain with the combination of TAF with an INSTI came in a recent report from the ADVANCE trial, a randomized, head-to-head comparison of three regimens in 1,053 HIV patients in South Africa. After 144 weeks on a regimen of TAF (Vemlidy), DTG (Tivicay), and FTC (emtricitabine, Emtriva), another NRTI, women gained an averaged of more than 12 kg, compared with their baseline weight, significantly more than in two comparator groups, Simiso Sokhela, MB, reported at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. The women in ADVANCE on the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen also had an 11% rate of incident metabolic syndrome during their first 96 weeks on treatment, compared with rates of 8% among patients on a different form of tenofovir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), along with DTG-FTC, and 5% among those on TDF–EFV (efavirenz, Sustiva)–FTC said Dr. Sokhela, an HIV researcher at Ezintsha, a division of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“We believe that these results support the World Health Organization guidelines that reserve TAF for only patients with osteoporosis or impaired renal function,” Dr. Sokhela said during a press briefing at the conference. The WHO guidelines list the first-line regimen as TDF-DTG-3TC (lamivudine; Epivir) or FTC. “The risk for becoming obese continued to increase after 96 weeks” of chronic use of these drugs, she added.

“All regimens are now brilliant at viral control. Finding the ones that don’t make patients obese or have other long-term side effects is now the priority,” noted Dr. Venter, a professor and HIV researcher at University of the Witwatersrand, head of Ezintsha, and lead investigator of ADVANCE. Clinicians and researchers have recently thought that combining TAF and an INSTI plus FTC or a similar NRTI “would be the ultimate regimen to replace the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)” such as EFV, “but now we have a major headache” with unexpectedly high weight gains in some patients, Dr. Venter said.

Weight gains “over 10 kg are unlikely to be acceptable in any circumstances, especially when starting body mass index is already borderline overweight,” wrote Dr. Venter along with Dr. Hill in their commentary. Until recently, many clinicians chalked up weight gain on newly begun ART as a manifestation of the patient’s “return-to-health,” but this interpretation “gives a positive spin to a potentially serious and common side effect,” they added.
 

More from ADVANCE

The primary efficacy endpoint of ADVANCE was suppression of viral load to less than 50 RNA copies/mL after 48 weeks on treatment, and the result showed that the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen and the TDF-DTG-FTC regimen were each noninferior to the control regimen of TDF-EFV-FTC (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:803-15). Virtually all of the enrolled patients were Black, and 59% were women. Planned follow-up of all patients ran for 96 weeks. After 48 weeks, weight gain among the women averaged 6.4 kg, 3.2 kg, and 1.7 kg in the TAF-DTG, TDF-DTG, and TDF-EFV arms respectively. After 96 weeks, the average weight gains among women were 8.2 kg, 4.6 kg, and 3.2 kg, respectively, in new results reported by Dr. Sokhela at the IAC. Follow-up to 144 weeks was partial and included about a quarter of the enrolled women, with gains averaging 12.3 kg, 7.4 kg, and 5.5 kg respectively. The pattern of weight gain among men tracked the pattern in women, but the magnitude of gain was less. Among men followed for 144 weeks, average gain among those on TAF-DTG-FTC was 7.2 kg, the largest gain seen among men on any regimen and at any follow-up time in the study.

Dr. Sokhela also reported data on body composition analyses, which showed that the weight gains were largely in fat rather than lean tissue, fat accumulation was significantly greater in women than men, and that in both sexes fat accumulated roughly equally in the trunk and on limbs.

An additional analysis looked at the incidence of new-onset obesity among the women who had a normal body mass index at baseline. After 96 weeks, incident obesity occurred in 14% of women on the TAG-DTG-FTC regimen, 8% on TDF-DTG-FTC, and in 2% of women maintained on TDF-EFV-FTC, said Dr. Hill in a separate report at the conference.
 

Weight starts to weigh in

“I am very mindful of weight gain potential, and I talk to patients about it. It doesn’t determine what regimen I choose for a patient” right now, “but it’s only a matter of time before it starts influencing what we do, particularly if we can achieve efficacy with fewer drugs,” commented Babafemi O. Taiwo, MD, professor of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Northwestern University in Chicago. “I’ve had some patients show up with a weight gain of 20 kg, and that shouldn’t happen,” he said during a recent online educational session. Dr. Taiwo said his recent practice has been to warn patients about possible weight gain and to urge them to get back in touch with him quickly if it happens.

“Virologic suppression is the most important goal with ART, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services currently recommends INSTI-based ART for most PWH [people with HIV],” wrote Dr. Lake in April 2020. “I counsel all PWH initiating ART about the potential for weight gain, and I discuss their current diet and healthy lifestyle habits. I explain to patients that we will monitor their weight, and if weight gain seems more than either of us are comfortable with then we will reassess. Only a small percentage of patients experience excessive weight gain after starting ART.” Dr. Lake also stressed that she had not yet begun to change the regimen a patient is on solely because of weight gain. “We do not know whether this weight gain is reversible,” she noted.

“I do not anticipate that a risk of weight gain at present will dictate a change in guidelines,” said Dr. Geretti. “Drugs such as dolutegravir and bictegravir are very effective, and they are unlikely to cause drug resistance. Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and the reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” she predicted.

“I consider weight gain when prescribing because my patients hear about this. It’s a side effect that my patients really care about, and I don’t blame them,” said Lisa Hightow-Weidman, MD, a professor and HIV specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an on-line educational session. “If you don’t discuss it with a patient and then weight gain happens and the patient finds out [the known risk from their treatment] they may have an issue,” she noted. But weight gain is not a reason to avoid these drugs. “They are great medications in many ways, with once-daily regimens and few side effects.”
 

Weight gain during pregnancy a special concern

An additional analysis of data from ADVANCE presented at the conference highlighted what the observed weight gain on ART could mean for women who become pregnant while on treatment. Based on a systematic literature review, the ADVANCE investigators calculated the relative risk for six obesity-related pregnancy complications, compared with nonobese women: preterm delivery, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, and caesarean delivery. Based on the obesity changes among women on their assigned ART in ADVANCE, the researchers calculated the predicted incidence of these six complications. The analysis showed that for every 1,000 women, those on TAG-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 53 obesity-related pregnancy complications, those on TDF-DTG-FTC would develop 28 excess pregnancy complications, and those on TDG-EFV-FTC would have four excess complications, reported Dr. Hill at the International AIDS conference.

The researchers also ran a similar simulation for the incidence of neonatal complications that could result when mothers are obese because of their ART. The six neonatal complications included in this analysis were small for gestational age, large for gestational age, macrosomia, neonatal death, stillbirth, and neural tube defects. Based on the excess rate of incident obesity, they calculated that for every 1,000 pregnancies women on TAD-DTG-FTC would have 24 additional infants born with one of these complications, women on TDF-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 13 of these events, and women on TDG-EFV-FTC would have an excess of three such obesity-related neonatal complications, Dr. Hill said.
 

Sorting out the drugs

Results from several additional studies reported at the conference have started trying to discern exactly which ART drugs and regimens pose the greatest weight gain risk and which have the least risk while retaining high efficacy and resistance barriers.

Further evidence implicating any type of ART as a driver of increased weight came from a review of 8,256 adults infected with HIV and members of the Kaiser Permanente health system in three U.S. regions during 2000-2016. Researchers matched these cases using several demographic factors with just under 130,000 members without HIV. Those infected by HIV had half the prevalence of obesity as the matched controls at baseline. During 12 years of follow-up, those infected with HIV had a threefold higher rate of weight gain than those who were uninfected. Annual weight gain averaged 0.06 kg/year among the uninfected people and 0.22 kg/year among those infected with HIV, a statistically significant difference that was consistent regardless of whether people started the study at a normal body mass index, overweight, or obese, reported Michael J. Silverberg, PhD, an epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.

Another study tried to focus on the weight gain impact when patients on three-drug ART regimens changed from taking TDF to TAF. This analysis used data collected in the OPERA (Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research & Analysis) longitudinal cohort of about 115,000 U.S. PWH. The observational cohort included nearly 7,000 patients who made a TDF-to-TAF switch, including 3,288 patients who maintained treatment during this switch with an INSTI, 1,454 who maintained a background regimen based on a NNRTI, 1,430 patients who also switched from an INSTI to a different drug, and 747 patients maintained on a boosted dose of a protease inhibitor. All patients were well controlled on their baseline regimen, with at least two consecutive measures showing undetectable viral load.

Patients who maintained their background regimens while changing from TDF to TAF had a 2.0-2.6 kg increase in weight during the 9 months immediately following their switch to TAF, reported Patrick Mallon, MB, a professor of microbial diseases at University College Dublin. Among the patients who both switched to TAF and also switched to treatment with an INSTI, weight gain during the 9 months after the switch averaged 2.6-4.5 kg, depending on which INSTI was started. Patients who switched to treatment with elvitegravir/cobicistat (an INSTI plus a boosting agent) averaged a gain of 2.6 kg during 9 months, those who switched to DTG averaged a 3.1-kg gain, and those who switched to BTG averaged a 4.6-kg increase, Dr. Mallon reported at the conference.

These findings “give us a good sense that the weight gain is real. This is not just overeating or not exercising, but weight changes coincidental with a change in HIV treatment,” commented David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine and site leader of the HIV Prevention and Treatment Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an online educational session.

Contrary to this evidence suggesting a consistent uptick in weight when patients start TAF treatment was a recent report on 629 HIV patients randomized to treatment with TAF-BTG-FTC or abacavir (an NRTI, Ziagen)–DTG-3TC, which found similar weight gains between these two regimens after 144 weeks on treatment (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun;7[6]:e389-400). This finding had the effect of “strengthening the argument that TAF is simply an innocent bystander” and does not play a central role in weight gain, and supporting the notion that the alternative tenofovir formulation, TDF, differs from TAF by promoting weight loss, Dr. Venter and Dr. Hill suggested in their commentary that accompanied this report.

The new findings from Dr. Mallon raise “serious questions about the way we have moved to TAF as a replacement for TDF, especially because the benefits [from TAF] are for a small subgroup – patients with renal disease or osteoporosis,” Dr. Venter said in an interview. “The question is, will we see weight gain like this” if TAF was combined with a non-INSTI drug? he wondered.

While some study results have suggested a mitigating effect from TDF on weight gain, that wasn’t the case in the AFRICOS (African Cohort Study) study of 1,954 PWH who started treatment with TDF-DTG-FTC (742 patients) or a different three-drug regimen. After a median of 225 days on treatment, those who started on TDF-DTG-FTC had an adjusted, 85% higher rate of developing a high body mass index, compared with patients on a different ART regimen, Julie Ake, MD, reported in a talk at the conference. Her conclusion focused on the possible involvement of DTG: “Consistent with previous reports, dolutegravir was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing high body mass index,” said Dr. Ake, director of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program in Bethesda, Md. and leader of AFRICOS.

A potential workaround to some drugs that cause excessive the weight gain is to just not use them. That was part of the rationale for the TANGO study, which took 741 HIV-infected patients with successful viral suppression on a regimen of TAF-FTC plus one or two additional agents and switched half of them to a TAF-less, two-drug regimen of DTG-FTC. This open-label study’s primary endpoint was noninferiority for viral suppression of the DTG-FTC regimen, compared with patients who stayed on their starting regimen, and the results proved that DTG-FTC was just as effective over 48 weeks for this outcome (Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1243).

At the conference, TANGO’s lead investigator, Jean van Wyk, MD, reported the weight and metabolic effects of the switch. The results showed a similar and small weight gain (on average less than 1 kg) during 48 week follow-up regardless of whether patients remained on their baseline, TAF-containing regimen or switched to DTG-FTC, said Dr. van Wyk, global medical lead for HIV treatment at Viiv Healthcare, the company that markets DTG. About three-quarters of patients in both arms received “boosted” dosages of their drugs, and in this subgroup, patients on DTG-FTC showed statistically significant benefits in several lipid levels, fasting glucose level, and in their degree of insulin resistance. Dr. van Wyk said. These between-group differences were not statistically significant among the “unboosted” patients, and the results failed to show a significant between-group difference in the incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Dr. Venter called these results “exciting,” and noted that he already uses the DTG-FTC two-drug combination “a lot” to treat PWH and renal disease.

A second alternative regimen showcased in a talk at the conference used the three-drug regimen of TDF-FTC plus the NNRTI, DOR (doravirine, Pifeltro). The DRIVE-SHIFT trial enrolled 670 HIV patients with successfully suppressed viral load on conventional regimens who were either switched to TDF-DOR-FTC or maintained on their baseline treatment. After 48 weeks, results confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint of noninferiority for maintenance of suppression with the investigational regimen (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 Aug;81[4]:463-72).

A post-hoc analysis looked at weight changes among these patients after as much as 144 weeks of follow-up. The results showed that patients switched to TDF-DOR-FTC had an average weight increase of 1.2-1.4 kg after more than 2 years on the new regimen, with fewer than 10% of patients having a 10% or greater weight gain with DOR, a “next-generation” NNRTI, reported Princy N. Kumar, MD, professor at Georgetown University and chief of infectious diseases at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “Weight gain was minimal, even over the long term,” she noted.

The tested DOR-based regimen also looks “very exciting,” but the populations it’s been tested have also been largely limited to White men, and limited data exist about the regimen’s performance in pregnant women, commented Dr. Venter. The DRIVE-SHIRT patient cohort was about 85% men, and about three-quarters White.

More weight data needed

HIV-treatment researchers and clinicians seem agreed that weight gain and other metabolic effects from HIV treatment need more assessment and evidence because current data, while suggestive, is also inconclusive.

“Clinical trials are desperately needed to understand the mechanisms of and potential therapeutic options for excessive weight gain on ART,” wrote Dr. Lake in her commentary in April. “While more research is needed,” the new data reported at the virtual International AIDS conference “get us closer to understanding the effects of integrase inhibitors and TAF on weight and the potential metabolic consequences,” she commented as chair of the conference session where these reports occurred.

“Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and its reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” predicted Dr. Geretti.

“It’s hard to understand physiologically how drugs from such different classes all seem to have weight effects; it’s maddening,” said Dr. Venter. “We need decent studies in all patient populations. That will now be the priority,” he declared. “Patients shouldn’t have to choose” between drugs that most effectively control their HIV infection and drugs that don’t pose a risk for weight gain or metabolic derangements. PWH “should not have to face obesity as their new epidemic,” he wrote with Dr. Hill.

ADVANCE was funded in part by Viiv, the company that markets dolutegravir (Tivicay), and received drugs supplied by Gilead and Viiv. TANGO was sponsored by Viiv. DRIVE-SHIFT was funded by Merck, the company that markets doravirine (Pifeltro). Dr. Lake, Dr. Sokhela, Dr. Ake, and Dr. Kumar had no disclosures, Dr. Venter has received personal fees from Adcock Ingraham, Aspen Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Mylan, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Hill has received payments from Merck. Dr. Geretti has received honoraria and research funding from Gilead, Jansse, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Taiwo has had financial relationships with Gilead, Janssen, and Viiv. Dr. Hightow-Weidman has received honoraria from Gilead and Jansse. Dr. Wohl has been a consultant to Gilead, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Dr. Silverberg received research funding from Gilead. Dr. Mallon has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cilag, Gilead, Jansse, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Viiv. Dr. van Wyk is a Viiv employee.

[email protected]

People living with HIV who put on extra pounds and develop metabolic syndrome or related disorders linked in part to certain antiretroviral agents remain a concern today, even as the drugs used to suppress HIV infection have evolved over the decades.

Linkage of HIV treatment with lipodystrophy and insulin resistance or diabetes began in the 1990s with protease inhibitors (Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;30[suppl 2]:s135-42). Several reports over the years also tied any form of effective antiretroviral therapy to weight gain in HIV patients (Antivir Ther. 2012;17[7]:1281-9). More recently, reports have rattled the HIV-treatment community by associating alarmingly high levels of weight gain with a useful and relatively new drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) – a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) approved for use in the United States in late 2016, as well as certain agents from an entirely different antiretroviral therapy (ART) class, the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Both TAF and the INSTIs have come to play major roles in the HIV-treatment landscape, despite relevant and concerning recent weight gain observations with these drugs, such as in a 2019 meta-analysis of eight trials with 5,680 treatment-naive patients who started ART during 2003-2015 (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 14;doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz999).

“Weight gain is clearly seen in studies of dolutegravir [DTG] or bictegravir [BTG] with TAF,” wrote W.D. Francois Venter, PhD and Andrew Hill, PhD in a recent published commentary on the topic (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun 1;7[6]:e389-400). Both DTG and BTG are INSTI class members.

“Excessive weight gain, defined as more than 10% over baseline, has recently been observed among people with HIV initiating or switching to regimens incorporating TAF, an INSTI, or both, particularly DTG,” wrote Jordan E. Lake, MD, an HIV specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, in a recent commentary posted online. Women and Black patients “are at even greater risk for excessive weight gain,” Dr. Lake added.

“In recent times, it has emerged that weight gain is more pronounced with the integrase inhibitor class of agents, especially dolutegravir and bictegravir, the so-called second-generation” INSTIs, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, a professor of clinical infection, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Liverpool, England. ”The effect is more pronounced in women and people of non-White ethnicity, and is of concern because of the associated potential risk of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, etc.,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

The unprecedented susceptibility to weight gain seen recently in non-White women may in part have resulted from the tendency of many earlier treatment trials to have cohorts comprised predominantly of White men, Dr. Venter noted in an interview.
 

Alarming weight gains reported

Perhaps the most eye-popping example of the potential for weight gain with the combination of TAF with an INSTI came in a recent report from the ADVANCE trial, a randomized, head-to-head comparison of three regimens in 1,053 HIV patients in South Africa. After 144 weeks on a regimen of TAF (Vemlidy), DTG (Tivicay), and FTC (emtricitabine, Emtriva), another NRTI, women gained an averaged of more than 12 kg, compared with their baseline weight, significantly more than in two comparator groups, Simiso Sokhela, MB, reported at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. The women in ADVANCE on the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen also had an 11% rate of incident metabolic syndrome during their first 96 weeks on treatment, compared with rates of 8% among patients on a different form of tenofovir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), along with DTG-FTC, and 5% among those on TDF–EFV (efavirenz, Sustiva)–FTC said Dr. Sokhela, an HIV researcher at Ezintsha, a division of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“We believe that these results support the World Health Organization guidelines that reserve TAF for only patients with osteoporosis or impaired renal function,” Dr. Sokhela said during a press briefing at the conference. The WHO guidelines list the first-line regimen as TDF-DTG-3TC (lamivudine; Epivir) or FTC. “The risk for becoming obese continued to increase after 96 weeks” of chronic use of these drugs, she added.

“All regimens are now brilliant at viral control. Finding the ones that don’t make patients obese or have other long-term side effects is now the priority,” noted Dr. Venter, a professor and HIV researcher at University of the Witwatersrand, head of Ezintsha, and lead investigator of ADVANCE. Clinicians and researchers have recently thought that combining TAF and an INSTI plus FTC or a similar NRTI “would be the ultimate regimen to replace the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)” such as EFV, “but now we have a major headache” with unexpectedly high weight gains in some patients, Dr. Venter said.

Weight gains “over 10 kg are unlikely to be acceptable in any circumstances, especially when starting body mass index is already borderline overweight,” wrote Dr. Venter along with Dr. Hill in their commentary. Until recently, many clinicians chalked up weight gain on newly begun ART as a manifestation of the patient’s “return-to-health,” but this interpretation “gives a positive spin to a potentially serious and common side effect,” they added.
 

More from ADVANCE

The primary efficacy endpoint of ADVANCE was suppression of viral load to less than 50 RNA copies/mL after 48 weeks on treatment, and the result showed that the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen and the TDF-DTG-FTC regimen were each noninferior to the control regimen of TDF-EFV-FTC (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:803-15). Virtually all of the enrolled patients were Black, and 59% were women. Planned follow-up of all patients ran for 96 weeks. After 48 weeks, weight gain among the women averaged 6.4 kg, 3.2 kg, and 1.7 kg in the TAF-DTG, TDF-DTG, and TDF-EFV arms respectively. After 96 weeks, the average weight gains among women were 8.2 kg, 4.6 kg, and 3.2 kg, respectively, in new results reported by Dr. Sokhela at the IAC. Follow-up to 144 weeks was partial and included about a quarter of the enrolled women, with gains averaging 12.3 kg, 7.4 kg, and 5.5 kg respectively. The pattern of weight gain among men tracked the pattern in women, but the magnitude of gain was less. Among men followed for 144 weeks, average gain among those on TAF-DTG-FTC was 7.2 kg, the largest gain seen among men on any regimen and at any follow-up time in the study.

Dr. Sokhela also reported data on body composition analyses, which showed that the weight gains were largely in fat rather than lean tissue, fat accumulation was significantly greater in women than men, and that in both sexes fat accumulated roughly equally in the trunk and on limbs.

An additional analysis looked at the incidence of new-onset obesity among the women who had a normal body mass index at baseline. After 96 weeks, incident obesity occurred in 14% of women on the TAG-DTG-FTC regimen, 8% on TDF-DTG-FTC, and in 2% of women maintained on TDF-EFV-FTC, said Dr. Hill in a separate report at the conference.
 

Weight starts to weigh in

“I am very mindful of weight gain potential, and I talk to patients about it. It doesn’t determine what regimen I choose for a patient” right now, “but it’s only a matter of time before it starts influencing what we do, particularly if we can achieve efficacy with fewer drugs,” commented Babafemi O. Taiwo, MD, professor of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Northwestern University in Chicago. “I’ve had some patients show up with a weight gain of 20 kg, and that shouldn’t happen,” he said during a recent online educational session. Dr. Taiwo said his recent practice has been to warn patients about possible weight gain and to urge them to get back in touch with him quickly if it happens.

“Virologic suppression is the most important goal with ART, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services currently recommends INSTI-based ART for most PWH [people with HIV],” wrote Dr. Lake in April 2020. “I counsel all PWH initiating ART about the potential for weight gain, and I discuss their current diet and healthy lifestyle habits. I explain to patients that we will monitor their weight, and if weight gain seems more than either of us are comfortable with then we will reassess. Only a small percentage of patients experience excessive weight gain after starting ART.” Dr. Lake also stressed that she had not yet begun to change the regimen a patient is on solely because of weight gain. “We do not know whether this weight gain is reversible,” she noted.

“I do not anticipate that a risk of weight gain at present will dictate a change in guidelines,” said Dr. Geretti. “Drugs such as dolutegravir and bictegravir are very effective, and they are unlikely to cause drug resistance. Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and the reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” she predicted.

“I consider weight gain when prescribing because my patients hear about this. It’s a side effect that my patients really care about, and I don’t blame them,” said Lisa Hightow-Weidman, MD, a professor and HIV specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an on-line educational session. “If you don’t discuss it with a patient and then weight gain happens and the patient finds out [the known risk from their treatment] they may have an issue,” she noted. But weight gain is not a reason to avoid these drugs. “They are great medications in many ways, with once-daily regimens and few side effects.”
 

Weight gain during pregnancy a special concern

An additional analysis of data from ADVANCE presented at the conference highlighted what the observed weight gain on ART could mean for women who become pregnant while on treatment. Based on a systematic literature review, the ADVANCE investigators calculated the relative risk for six obesity-related pregnancy complications, compared with nonobese women: preterm delivery, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, and caesarean delivery. Based on the obesity changes among women on their assigned ART in ADVANCE, the researchers calculated the predicted incidence of these six complications. The analysis showed that for every 1,000 women, those on TAG-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 53 obesity-related pregnancy complications, those on TDF-DTG-FTC would develop 28 excess pregnancy complications, and those on TDG-EFV-FTC would have four excess complications, reported Dr. Hill at the International AIDS conference.

The researchers also ran a similar simulation for the incidence of neonatal complications that could result when mothers are obese because of their ART. The six neonatal complications included in this analysis were small for gestational age, large for gestational age, macrosomia, neonatal death, stillbirth, and neural tube defects. Based on the excess rate of incident obesity, they calculated that for every 1,000 pregnancies women on TAD-DTG-FTC would have 24 additional infants born with one of these complications, women on TDF-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 13 of these events, and women on TDG-EFV-FTC would have an excess of three such obesity-related neonatal complications, Dr. Hill said.
 

Sorting out the drugs

Results from several additional studies reported at the conference have started trying to discern exactly which ART drugs and regimens pose the greatest weight gain risk and which have the least risk while retaining high efficacy and resistance barriers.

Further evidence implicating any type of ART as a driver of increased weight came from a review of 8,256 adults infected with HIV and members of the Kaiser Permanente health system in three U.S. regions during 2000-2016. Researchers matched these cases using several demographic factors with just under 130,000 members without HIV. Those infected by HIV had half the prevalence of obesity as the matched controls at baseline. During 12 years of follow-up, those infected with HIV had a threefold higher rate of weight gain than those who were uninfected. Annual weight gain averaged 0.06 kg/year among the uninfected people and 0.22 kg/year among those infected with HIV, a statistically significant difference that was consistent regardless of whether people started the study at a normal body mass index, overweight, or obese, reported Michael J. Silverberg, PhD, an epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.

Another study tried to focus on the weight gain impact when patients on three-drug ART regimens changed from taking TDF to TAF. This analysis used data collected in the OPERA (Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research & Analysis) longitudinal cohort of about 115,000 U.S. PWH. The observational cohort included nearly 7,000 patients who made a TDF-to-TAF switch, including 3,288 patients who maintained treatment during this switch with an INSTI, 1,454 who maintained a background regimen based on a NNRTI, 1,430 patients who also switched from an INSTI to a different drug, and 747 patients maintained on a boosted dose of a protease inhibitor. All patients were well controlled on their baseline regimen, with at least two consecutive measures showing undetectable viral load.

Patients who maintained their background regimens while changing from TDF to TAF had a 2.0-2.6 kg increase in weight during the 9 months immediately following their switch to TAF, reported Patrick Mallon, MB, a professor of microbial diseases at University College Dublin. Among the patients who both switched to TAF and also switched to treatment with an INSTI, weight gain during the 9 months after the switch averaged 2.6-4.5 kg, depending on which INSTI was started. Patients who switched to treatment with elvitegravir/cobicistat (an INSTI plus a boosting agent) averaged a gain of 2.6 kg during 9 months, those who switched to DTG averaged a 3.1-kg gain, and those who switched to BTG averaged a 4.6-kg increase, Dr. Mallon reported at the conference.

These findings “give us a good sense that the weight gain is real. This is not just overeating or not exercising, but weight changes coincidental with a change in HIV treatment,” commented David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine and site leader of the HIV Prevention and Treatment Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an online educational session.

Contrary to this evidence suggesting a consistent uptick in weight when patients start TAF treatment was a recent report on 629 HIV patients randomized to treatment with TAF-BTG-FTC or abacavir (an NRTI, Ziagen)–DTG-3TC, which found similar weight gains between these two regimens after 144 weeks on treatment (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun;7[6]:e389-400). This finding had the effect of “strengthening the argument that TAF is simply an innocent bystander” and does not play a central role in weight gain, and supporting the notion that the alternative tenofovir formulation, TDF, differs from TAF by promoting weight loss, Dr. Venter and Dr. Hill suggested in their commentary that accompanied this report.

The new findings from Dr. Mallon raise “serious questions about the way we have moved to TAF as a replacement for TDF, especially because the benefits [from TAF] are for a small subgroup – patients with renal disease or osteoporosis,” Dr. Venter said in an interview. “The question is, will we see weight gain like this” if TAF was combined with a non-INSTI drug? he wondered.

While some study results have suggested a mitigating effect from TDF on weight gain, that wasn’t the case in the AFRICOS (African Cohort Study) study of 1,954 PWH who started treatment with TDF-DTG-FTC (742 patients) or a different three-drug regimen. After a median of 225 days on treatment, those who started on TDF-DTG-FTC had an adjusted, 85% higher rate of developing a high body mass index, compared with patients on a different ART regimen, Julie Ake, MD, reported in a talk at the conference. Her conclusion focused on the possible involvement of DTG: “Consistent with previous reports, dolutegravir was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing high body mass index,” said Dr. Ake, director of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program in Bethesda, Md. and leader of AFRICOS.

A potential workaround to some drugs that cause excessive the weight gain is to just not use them. That was part of the rationale for the TANGO study, which took 741 HIV-infected patients with successful viral suppression on a regimen of TAF-FTC plus one or two additional agents and switched half of them to a TAF-less, two-drug regimen of DTG-FTC. This open-label study’s primary endpoint was noninferiority for viral suppression of the DTG-FTC regimen, compared with patients who stayed on their starting regimen, and the results proved that DTG-FTC was just as effective over 48 weeks for this outcome (Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1243).

At the conference, TANGO’s lead investigator, Jean van Wyk, MD, reported the weight and metabolic effects of the switch. The results showed a similar and small weight gain (on average less than 1 kg) during 48 week follow-up regardless of whether patients remained on their baseline, TAF-containing regimen or switched to DTG-FTC, said Dr. van Wyk, global medical lead for HIV treatment at Viiv Healthcare, the company that markets DTG. About three-quarters of patients in both arms received “boosted” dosages of their drugs, and in this subgroup, patients on DTG-FTC showed statistically significant benefits in several lipid levels, fasting glucose level, and in their degree of insulin resistance. Dr. van Wyk said. These between-group differences were not statistically significant among the “unboosted” patients, and the results failed to show a significant between-group difference in the incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Dr. Venter called these results “exciting,” and noted that he already uses the DTG-FTC two-drug combination “a lot” to treat PWH and renal disease.

A second alternative regimen showcased in a talk at the conference used the three-drug regimen of TDF-FTC plus the NNRTI, DOR (doravirine, Pifeltro). The DRIVE-SHIFT trial enrolled 670 HIV patients with successfully suppressed viral load on conventional regimens who were either switched to TDF-DOR-FTC or maintained on their baseline treatment. After 48 weeks, results confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint of noninferiority for maintenance of suppression with the investigational regimen (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 Aug;81[4]:463-72).

A post-hoc analysis looked at weight changes among these patients after as much as 144 weeks of follow-up. The results showed that patients switched to TDF-DOR-FTC had an average weight increase of 1.2-1.4 kg after more than 2 years on the new regimen, with fewer than 10% of patients having a 10% or greater weight gain with DOR, a “next-generation” NNRTI, reported Princy N. Kumar, MD, professor at Georgetown University and chief of infectious diseases at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “Weight gain was minimal, even over the long term,” she noted.

The tested DOR-based regimen also looks “very exciting,” but the populations it’s been tested have also been largely limited to White men, and limited data exist about the regimen’s performance in pregnant women, commented Dr. Venter. The DRIVE-SHIRT patient cohort was about 85% men, and about three-quarters White.

More weight data needed

HIV-treatment researchers and clinicians seem agreed that weight gain and other metabolic effects from HIV treatment need more assessment and evidence because current data, while suggestive, is also inconclusive.

“Clinical trials are desperately needed to understand the mechanisms of and potential therapeutic options for excessive weight gain on ART,” wrote Dr. Lake in her commentary in April. “While more research is needed,” the new data reported at the virtual International AIDS conference “get us closer to understanding the effects of integrase inhibitors and TAF on weight and the potential metabolic consequences,” she commented as chair of the conference session where these reports occurred.

“Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and its reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” predicted Dr. Geretti.

“It’s hard to understand physiologically how drugs from such different classes all seem to have weight effects; it’s maddening,” said Dr. Venter. “We need decent studies in all patient populations. That will now be the priority,” he declared. “Patients shouldn’t have to choose” between drugs that most effectively control their HIV infection and drugs that don’t pose a risk for weight gain or metabolic derangements. PWH “should not have to face obesity as their new epidemic,” he wrote with Dr. Hill.

ADVANCE was funded in part by Viiv, the company that markets dolutegravir (Tivicay), and received drugs supplied by Gilead and Viiv. TANGO was sponsored by Viiv. DRIVE-SHIFT was funded by Merck, the company that markets doravirine (Pifeltro). Dr. Lake, Dr. Sokhela, Dr. Ake, and Dr. Kumar had no disclosures, Dr. Venter has received personal fees from Adcock Ingraham, Aspen Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Mylan, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Hill has received payments from Merck. Dr. Geretti has received honoraria and research funding from Gilead, Jansse, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Taiwo has had financial relationships with Gilead, Janssen, and Viiv. Dr. Hightow-Weidman has received honoraria from Gilead and Jansse. Dr. Wohl has been a consultant to Gilead, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Dr. Silverberg received research funding from Gilead. Dr. Mallon has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cilag, Gilead, Jansse, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Viiv. Dr. van Wyk is a Viiv employee.

[email protected]

People living with HIV who put on extra pounds and develop metabolic syndrome or related disorders linked in part to certain antiretroviral agents remain a concern today, even as the drugs used to suppress HIV infection have evolved over the decades.

Linkage of HIV treatment with lipodystrophy and insulin resistance or diabetes began in the 1990s with protease inhibitors (Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Jun;30[suppl 2]:s135-42). Several reports over the years also tied any form of effective antiretroviral therapy to weight gain in HIV patients (Antivir Ther. 2012;17[7]:1281-9). More recently, reports have rattled the HIV-treatment community by associating alarmingly high levels of weight gain with a useful and relatively new drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) – a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) approved for use in the United States in late 2016, as well as certain agents from an entirely different antiretroviral therapy (ART) class, the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Both TAF and the INSTIs have come to play major roles in the HIV-treatment landscape, despite relevant and concerning recent weight gain observations with these drugs, such as in a 2019 meta-analysis of eight trials with 5,680 treatment-naive patients who started ART during 2003-2015 (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 14;doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz999).

“Weight gain is clearly seen in studies of dolutegravir [DTG] or bictegravir [BTG] with TAF,” wrote W.D. Francois Venter, PhD and Andrew Hill, PhD in a recent published commentary on the topic (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun 1;7[6]:e389-400). Both DTG and BTG are INSTI class members.

“Excessive weight gain, defined as more than 10% over baseline, has recently been observed among people with HIV initiating or switching to regimens incorporating TAF, an INSTI, or both, particularly DTG,” wrote Jordan E. Lake, MD, an HIV specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, in a recent commentary posted online. Women and Black patients “are at even greater risk for excessive weight gain,” Dr. Lake added.

“In recent times, it has emerged that weight gain is more pronounced with the integrase inhibitor class of agents, especially dolutegravir and bictegravir, the so-called second-generation” INSTIs, said Anna Maria Geretti, MD, a professor of clinical infection, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Liverpool, England. ”The effect is more pronounced in women and people of non-White ethnicity, and is of concern because of the associated potential risk of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, etc.,” Dr. Geretti said in an interview.

The unprecedented susceptibility to weight gain seen recently in non-White women may in part have resulted from the tendency of many earlier treatment trials to have cohorts comprised predominantly of White men, Dr. Venter noted in an interview.
 

Alarming weight gains reported

Perhaps the most eye-popping example of the potential for weight gain with the combination of TAF with an INSTI came in a recent report from the ADVANCE trial, a randomized, head-to-head comparison of three regimens in 1,053 HIV patients in South Africa. After 144 weeks on a regimen of TAF (Vemlidy), DTG (Tivicay), and FTC (emtricitabine, Emtriva), another NRTI, women gained an averaged of more than 12 kg, compared with their baseline weight, significantly more than in two comparator groups, Simiso Sokhela, MB, reported at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. The women in ADVANCE on the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen also had an 11% rate of incident metabolic syndrome during their first 96 weeks on treatment, compared with rates of 8% among patients on a different form of tenofovir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), along with DTG-FTC, and 5% among those on TDF–EFV (efavirenz, Sustiva)–FTC said Dr. Sokhela, an HIV researcher at Ezintsha, a division of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“We believe that these results support the World Health Organization guidelines that reserve TAF for only patients with osteoporosis or impaired renal function,” Dr. Sokhela said during a press briefing at the conference. The WHO guidelines list the first-line regimen as TDF-DTG-3TC (lamivudine; Epivir) or FTC. “The risk for becoming obese continued to increase after 96 weeks” of chronic use of these drugs, she added.

“All regimens are now brilliant at viral control. Finding the ones that don’t make patients obese or have other long-term side effects is now the priority,” noted Dr. Venter, a professor and HIV researcher at University of the Witwatersrand, head of Ezintsha, and lead investigator of ADVANCE. Clinicians and researchers have recently thought that combining TAF and an INSTI plus FTC or a similar NRTI “would be the ultimate regimen to replace the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)” such as EFV, “but now we have a major headache” with unexpectedly high weight gains in some patients, Dr. Venter said.

Weight gains “over 10 kg are unlikely to be acceptable in any circumstances, especially when starting body mass index is already borderline overweight,” wrote Dr. Venter along with Dr. Hill in their commentary. Until recently, many clinicians chalked up weight gain on newly begun ART as a manifestation of the patient’s “return-to-health,” but this interpretation “gives a positive spin to a potentially serious and common side effect,” they added.
 

More from ADVANCE

The primary efficacy endpoint of ADVANCE was suppression of viral load to less than 50 RNA copies/mL after 48 weeks on treatment, and the result showed that the TAF-DTG-FTC regimen and the TDF-DTG-FTC regimen were each noninferior to the control regimen of TDF-EFV-FTC (New Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 29;381[9]:803-15). Virtually all of the enrolled patients were Black, and 59% were women. Planned follow-up of all patients ran for 96 weeks. After 48 weeks, weight gain among the women averaged 6.4 kg, 3.2 kg, and 1.7 kg in the TAF-DTG, TDF-DTG, and TDF-EFV arms respectively. After 96 weeks, the average weight gains among women were 8.2 kg, 4.6 kg, and 3.2 kg, respectively, in new results reported by Dr. Sokhela at the IAC. Follow-up to 144 weeks was partial and included about a quarter of the enrolled women, with gains averaging 12.3 kg, 7.4 kg, and 5.5 kg respectively. The pattern of weight gain among men tracked the pattern in women, but the magnitude of gain was less. Among men followed for 144 weeks, average gain among those on TAF-DTG-FTC was 7.2 kg, the largest gain seen among men on any regimen and at any follow-up time in the study.

Dr. Sokhela also reported data on body composition analyses, which showed that the weight gains were largely in fat rather than lean tissue, fat accumulation was significantly greater in women than men, and that in both sexes fat accumulated roughly equally in the trunk and on limbs.

An additional analysis looked at the incidence of new-onset obesity among the women who had a normal body mass index at baseline. After 96 weeks, incident obesity occurred in 14% of women on the TAG-DTG-FTC regimen, 8% on TDF-DTG-FTC, and in 2% of women maintained on TDF-EFV-FTC, said Dr. Hill in a separate report at the conference.
 

Weight starts to weigh in

“I am very mindful of weight gain potential, and I talk to patients about it. It doesn’t determine what regimen I choose for a patient” right now, “but it’s only a matter of time before it starts influencing what we do, particularly if we can achieve efficacy with fewer drugs,” commented Babafemi O. Taiwo, MD, professor of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Northwestern University in Chicago. “I’ve had some patients show up with a weight gain of 20 kg, and that shouldn’t happen,” he said during a recent online educational session. Dr. Taiwo said his recent practice has been to warn patients about possible weight gain and to urge them to get back in touch with him quickly if it happens.

“Virologic suppression is the most important goal with ART, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services currently recommends INSTI-based ART for most PWH [people with HIV],” wrote Dr. Lake in April 2020. “I counsel all PWH initiating ART about the potential for weight gain, and I discuss their current diet and healthy lifestyle habits. I explain to patients that we will monitor their weight, and if weight gain seems more than either of us are comfortable with then we will reassess. Only a small percentage of patients experience excessive weight gain after starting ART.” Dr. Lake also stressed that she had not yet begun to change the regimen a patient is on solely because of weight gain. “We do not know whether this weight gain is reversible,” she noted.

“I do not anticipate that a risk of weight gain at present will dictate a change in guidelines,” said Dr. Geretti. “Drugs such as dolutegravir and bictegravir are very effective, and they are unlikely to cause drug resistance. Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and the reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” she predicted.

“I consider weight gain when prescribing because my patients hear about this. It’s a side effect that my patients really care about, and I don’t blame them,” said Lisa Hightow-Weidman, MD, a professor and HIV specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an on-line educational session. “If you don’t discuss it with a patient and then weight gain happens and the patient finds out [the known risk from their treatment] they may have an issue,” she noted. But weight gain is not a reason to avoid these drugs. “They are great medications in many ways, with once-daily regimens and few side effects.”
 

Weight gain during pregnancy a special concern

An additional analysis of data from ADVANCE presented at the conference highlighted what the observed weight gain on ART could mean for women who become pregnant while on treatment. Based on a systematic literature review, the ADVANCE investigators calculated the relative risk for six obesity-related pregnancy complications, compared with nonobese women: preterm delivery, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, and caesarean delivery. Based on the obesity changes among women on their assigned ART in ADVANCE, the researchers calculated the predicted incidence of these six complications. The analysis showed that for every 1,000 women, those on TAG-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 53 obesity-related pregnancy complications, those on TDF-DTG-FTC would develop 28 excess pregnancy complications, and those on TDG-EFV-FTC would have four excess complications, reported Dr. Hill at the International AIDS conference.

The researchers also ran a similar simulation for the incidence of neonatal complications that could result when mothers are obese because of their ART. The six neonatal complications included in this analysis were small for gestational age, large for gestational age, macrosomia, neonatal death, stillbirth, and neural tube defects. Based on the excess rate of incident obesity, they calculated that for every 1,000 pregnancies women on TAD-DTG-FTC would have 24 additional infants born with one of these complications, women on TDF-DTG-FTC would have an excess of 13 of these events, and women on TDG-EFV-FTC would have an excess of three such obesity-related neonatal complications, Dr. Hill said.
 

Sorting out the drugs

Results from several additional studies reported at the conference have started trying to discern exactly which ART drugs and regimens pose the greatest weight gain risk and which have the least risk while retaining high efficacy and resistance barriers.

Further evidence implicating any type of ART as a driver of increased weight came from a review of 8,256 adults infected with HIV and members of the Kaiser Permanente health system in three U.S. regions during 2000-2016. Researchers matched these cases using several demographic factors with just under 130,000 members without HIV. Those infected by HIV had half the prevalence of obesity as the matched controls at baseline. During 12 years of follow-up, those infected with HIV had a threefold higher rate of weight gain than those who were uninfected. Annual weight gain averaged 0.06 kg/year among the uninfected people and 0.22 kg/year among those infected with HIV, a statistically significant difference that was consistent regardless of whether people started the study at a normal body mass index, overweight, or obese, reported Michael J. Silverberg, PhD, an epidemiologist with Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.

Another study tried to focus on the weight gain impact when patients on three-drug ART regimens changed from taking TDF to TAF. This analysis used data collected in the OPERA (Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research & Analysis) longitudinal cohort of about 115,000 U.S. PWH. The observational cohort included nearly 7,000 patients who made a TDF-to-TAF switch, including 3,288 patients who maintained treatment during this switch with an INSTI, 1,454 who maintained a background regimen based on a NNRTI, 1,430 patients who also switched from an INSTI to a different drug, and 747 patients maintained on a boosted dose of a protease inhibitor. All patients were well controlled on their baseline regimen, with at least two consecutive measures showing undetectable viral load.

Patients who maintained their background regimens while changing from TDF to TAF had a 2.0-2.6 kg increase in weight during the 9 months immediately following their switch to TAF, reported Patrick Mallon, MB, a professor of microbial diseases at University College Dublin. Among the patients who both switched to TAF and also switched to treatment with an INSTI, weight gain during the 9 months after the switch averaged 2.6-4.5 kg, depending on which INSTI was started. Patients who switched to treatment with elvitegravir/cobicistat (an INSTI plus a boosting agent) averaged a gain of 2.6 kg during 9 months, those who switched to DTG averaged a 3.1-kg gain, and those who switched to BTG averaged a 4.6-kg increase, Dr. Mallon reported at the conference.

These findings “give us a good sense that the weight gain is real. This is not just overeating or not exercising, but weight changes coincidental with a change in HIV treatment,” commented David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine and site leader of the HIV Prevention and Treatment Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, during an online educational session.

Contrary to this evidence suggesting a consistent uptick in weight when patients start TAF treatment was a recent report on 629 HIV patients randomized to treatment with TAF-BTG-FTC or abacavir (an NRTI, Ziagen)–DTG-3TC, which found similar weight gains between these two regimens after 144 weeks on treatment (Lancet HIV. 2020 Jun;7[6]:e389-400). This finding had the effect of “strengthening the argument that TAF is simply an innocent bystander” and does not play a central role in weight gain, and supporting the notion that the alternative tenofovir formulation, TDF, differs from TAF by promoting weight loss, Dr. Venter and Dr. Hill suggested in their commentary that accompanied this report.

The new findings from Dr. Mallon raise “serious questions about the way we have moved to TAF as a replacement for TDF, especially because the benefits [from TAF] are for a small subgroup – patients with renal disease or osteoporosis,” Dr. Venter said in an interview. “The question is, will we see weight gain like this” if TAF was combined with a non-INSTI drug? he wondered.

While some study results have suggested a mitigating effect from TDF on weight gain, that wasn’t the case in the AFRICOS (African Cohort Study) study of 1,954 PWH who started treatment with TDF-DTG-FTC (742 patients) or a different three-drug regimen. After a median of 225 days on treatment, those who started on TDF-DTG-FTC had an adjusted, 85% higher rate of developing a high body mass index, compared with patients on a different ART regimen, Julie Ake, MD, reported in a talk at the conference. Her conclusion focused on the possible involvement of DTG: “Consistent with previous reports, dolutegravir was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing high body mass index,” said Dr. Ake, director of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program in Bethesda, Md. and leader of AFRICOS.

A potential workaround to some drugs that cause excessive the weight gain is to just not use them. That was part of the rationale for the TANGO study, which took 741 HIV-infected patients with successful viral suppression on a regimen of TAF-FTC plus one or two additional agents and switched half of them to a TAF-less, two-drug regimen of DTG-FTC. This open-label study’s primary endpoint was noninferiority for viral suppression of the DTG-FTC regimen, compared with patients who stayed on their starting regimen, and the results proved that DTG-FTC was just as effective over 48 weeks for this outcome (Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1243).

At the conference, TANGO’s lead investigator, Jean van Wyk, MD, reported the weight and metabolic effects of the switch. The results showed a similar and small weight gain (on average less than 1 kg) during 48 week follow-up regardless of whether patients remained on their baseline, TAF-containing regimen or switched to DTG-FTC, said Dr. van Wyk, global medical lead for HIV treatment at Viiv Healthcare, the company that markets DTG. About three-quarters of patients in both arms received “boosted” dosages of their drugs, and in this subgroup, patients on DTG-FTC showed statistically significant benefits in several lipid levels, fasting glucose level, and in their degree of insulin resistance. Dr. van Wyk said. These between-group differences were not statistically significant among the “unboosted” patients, and the results failed to show a significant between-group difference in the incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Dr. Venter called these results “exciting,” and noted that he already uses the DTG-FTC two-drug combination “a lot” to treat PWH and renal disease.

A second alternative regimen showcased in a talk at the conference used the three-drug regimen of TDF-FTC plus the NNRTI, DOR (doravirine, Pifeltro). The DRIVE-SHIFT trial enrolled 670 HIV patients with successfully suppressed viral load on conventional regimens who were either switched to TDF-DOR-FTC or maintained on their baseline treatment. After 48 weeks, results confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint of noninferiority for maintenance of suppression with the investigational regimen (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019 Aug;81[4]:463-72).

A post-hoc analysis looked at weight changes among these patients after as much as 144 weeks of follow-up. The results showed that patients switched to TDF-DOR-FTC had an average weight increase of 1.2-1.4 kg after more than 2 years on the new regimen, with fewer than 10% of patients having a 10% or greater weight gain with DOR, a “next-generation” NNRTI, reported Princy N. Kumar, MD, professor at Georgetown University and chief of infectious diseases at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “Weight gain was minimal, even over the long term,” she noted.

The tested DOR-based regimen also looks “very exciting,” but the populations it’s been tested have also been largely limited to White men, and limited data exist about the regimen’s performance in pregnant women, commented Dr. Venter. The DRIVE-SHIRT patient cohort was about 85% men, and about three-quarters White.

More weight data needed

HIV-treatment researchers and clinicians seem agreed that weight gain and other metabolic effects from HIV treatment need more assessment and evidence because current data, while suggestive, is also inconclusive.

“Clinical trials are desperately needed to understand the mechanisms of and potential therapeutic options for excessive weight gain on ART,” wrote Dr. Lake in her commentary in April. “While more research is needed,” the new data reported at the virtual International AIDS conference “get us closer to understanding the effects of integrase inhibitors and TAF on weight and the potential metabolic consequences,” she commented as chair of the conference session where these reports occurred.

“Further data on the mechanism of weight gain and its reversibility after a change of treatment will help refine drug selection in the near future,” predicted Dr. Geretti.

“It’s hard to understand physiologically how drugs from such different classes all seem to have weight effects; it’s maddening,” said Dr. Venter. “We need decent studies in all patient populations. That will now be the priority,” he declared. “Patients shouldn’t have to choose” between drugs that most effectively control their HIV infection and drugs that don’t pose a risk for weight gain or metabolic derangements. PWH “should not have to face obesity as their new epidemic,” he wrote with Dr. Hill.

ADVANCE was funded in part by Viiv, the company that markets dolutegravir (Tivicay), and received drugs supplied by Gilead and Viiv. TANGO was sponsored by Viiv. DRIVE-SHIFT was funded by Merck, the company that markets doravirine (Pifeltro). Dr. Lake, Dr. Sokhela, Dr. Ake, and Dr. Kumar had no disclosures, Dr. Venter has received personal fees from Adcock Ingraham, Aspen Healthcare, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Mylan, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Hill has received payments from Merck. Dr. Geretti has received honoraria and research funding from Gilead, Jansse, Roche, and Viiv. Dr. Taiwo has had financial relationships with Gilead, Janssen, and Viiv. Dr. Hightow-Weidman has received honoraria from Gilead and Jansse. Dr. Wohl has been a consultant to Gilead, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Dr. Silverberg received research funding from Gilead. Dr. Mallon has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cilag, Gilead, Jansse, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Viiv. Dr. van Wyk is a Viiv employee.

[email protected]

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

The American Cancer Society’s new guidance on human papillomavirus vaccination diverges from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations.

The ACS has endorsed two recommendations made by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, but the ACS does not agree with a third recommendation for older adults.

The ACIP recommends shared clinical decision-making regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in some adults aged 27-45 years who are not adequately vaccinated. The ACS does not endorse this recommendation “because of the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians, and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” wrote Debbie Saslow, PhD, of the ACS’s section on human papillomavirus and gynecologic cancers, and colleagues.

Dr. Saslow and colleagues detailed the ACS recommendations in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The HPV vaccine protects against the virus that can cause cervical, oropharyngeal, anal, vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. For younger people, the ACIP recommends routine HPV vaccination of boys and girls aged 9-12 years and catch-up vaccination in everyone up to age 26 who has not been fully immunized against HPV.

The ACS endorses both of these recommendations. It also advises clinicians to tell patients aged 22-26 years who haven’t received the HPV vaccine or completed the series that the vaccine is less effective at reducing the risk of cancer at older ages.

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for adults aged 27-45 years, the ACIP updated its recommendations to state that routine catch-up vaccination is not recommended for anyone aged over 26 years. However, the ACIP recommended that these older adults talk with their providers about the risks and benefits of the vaccine to determine whether to get it.

The ACS subsequently conducted a methodological review of the ACIP’s recommendations and published its own adapted guidance, stating that the ACS does not endorse the shared decision-making. Administering the HPV vaccine to adults aged over 26 years would only prevent an estimated 0.5% of additional cancer cases, 0.4% additional cases of cervical precancer, and 0.3% additional cases of genital warts over the next 100 years, compared with vaccination under age 26.

“In addition to the low effectiveness and low cancer prevention potential of vaccination in this age group, other considerations included the burden of decision-making on patients and clinicians and the lack of sufficient guidance on the selection of individuals who might benefit,” according to the guidance. The ACS also expressed concern that these provider-patient discussions could interfere with the public health goal of increasing HPV vaccination in younger people.

HPV vaccination rates have lagged substantially behind other routinely recommended childhood vaccinations. Just over half (51%) of U.S. teens aged 13-17 years were up to date with HPV vaccination, and 68% had received one dose of the vaccine in 2018, according to the National Immunization Survey.

It’s very uncommon for a professional medical organization to not endorse recommendations from the CDC, particularly with vaccines, according to Robert A. Bednarczyk, PhD, an assistant professor of public health at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in HPV vaccination research but was not involved with the ACS statement or the ACIP recommendations.

“Often, for vaccination recommendations, there is a harmonization between health care provider organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, etc., when new vaccination schedules are released,” Dr. Bednarczyk said.

He acknowledged the ACS’s reasons for not endorsing the ACIP’s HPV recommendations in older adults: the burden of shared decision-making given the communication issues, the vaccine’s lower effectiveness in this population, and the ongoing HPV vaccine shortage.

But Dr. Bednarczyk also pointed out that the ACIP’s recommendation opens the door to these discussions when they may actually be needed, such as in adults at greater risk for HPV. He cited data suggesting that, in 2015, divorces occurred in 24 out of 1,000 married people aged 25-39 years and 21 out of 1,000 people aged 40-49.

“When you consider these marriages that end, in addition to marriages that end when one spouse dies, there is a potential for individuals who previously had a low risk of HPV acquisition now entering into new potential sexual relationships,” Dr. Bednarczyk said. “Additionally, it has been estimated that approximately 4% of the U.S. population are in open or consensually nonmonogamous relationships, where exposure to more sexual partners may increase their risk for HPV. These are just some examples of where conversations with health care providers, and shared clinical decision-making, can help with a targeted reduction of HPV risk.”

The ACIP recommendation regarding adults aged 27-45 years also provides people in this age group with insurance coverage for the HPV vaccine if they choose to get it, Dr. Bednarczyk pointed out. Insurance companies may not be required to cover HPV vaccination in people aged over 26 years without the CDC’s recommendation, even if it’s not for routine immunization.

Dr. Bednarczyk agreed, however, with how the ACS adapted the CDC’s recommendation for routine vaccination in youth. The CDC’s routine recommendation is at ages 11-12 but can begin at 9 years, according to the ACIP. The ACS guidance qualifies this statement to place more emphasis on encouraging the vaccine earlier.

“Routine HPV vaccination between ages 9-12 is expected to achieve higher on-time vaccination rates, resulting in increased numbers of cancers prevented,” according to the ACS. “Health care providers are encouraged to start offering the HPV vaccine at age 9 or 10.”

Dr. Bednarczyk pointed to some of his past research finding low proportions of teens fully vaccinated against HPV by age 13 years (J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 31;220[5]:730-4). Therefore, “any efforts to encourage vaccination, including starting the series at ages 9-10 years may help,” he said.

He also agreed that there may be diminished effectiveness with vaccinating adults aged 22-26, “but this should also be considered relative to an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV.”

While an HPV vaccine shortage is a major concern and HPV vaccination efforts should remain most focused on young teens, adults should not necessarily be neglected, Dr. Bednarczyk noted.

“Given how common HPV infection is in the population, open discussion between patients and health care providers can help identify those adults for whom HPV vaccination can be effective,” he said.

The development of the ACS guideline was supported by ACS operational funds. The ACS has received an independent educational grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme for a project intended to increase HPV vaccination rates. Dr. Saslow is the principal investigator for a cooperative agreement between the ACS and the CDC to support the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable and is coprincipal investigator of a cooperative agreement between the ACS and CDC to support initiatives to increase HPV vaccination. The remaining authors and Dr. Bednarczyk reported no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Saslow D et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.3322/caac.21616.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

Low plasma vitamin D levels emerged as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in a large, population-based study.

Participants positive for COVID-19 were 50% more likely to have low vs normal 25(OH)D levels in a multivariate analysis that controlled for other confounders, for example.

The take home message for physicians is to “test patients’ vitamin D levels and keep them optimal for the overall health – as well as for a better immunoresponse to COVID-19,” senior author Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern, PhD, head of the Cancer Genomics and BioComputing of Complex Diseases Lab at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 23 in The FEBS Journal.

Previous and ongoing studies are evaluating a potential role for vitamin D to prevent or minimize the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, building on years of research addressing vitamin D for other viral respiratory infections. The evidence to date regarding COVID-19, primarily observational studies, has yielded mixed results.

Multiple experts weighed in on the controversy in a previous report. Many point out the limitations of observational data, particularly when it comes to ruling out other factors that could affect the severity of COVID-19 infection. In addition, in a video report, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, cited an observational study from three South Asian hospitals that found more severe COVID-19 patients had lower vitamin D levels, as well as other “compelling evidence” suggesting an association.

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues studied data for 7,807 people, of whom 10.1% were COVID-19 positive. They assessed electronic health records for demographics, potential confounders, and outcomes between February 1 and April 30.

Participants positive for COVID-19 tended to be younger and were more likely to be men and live in a lower socioeconomic area, compared with the participants who were negative for COVID-19, in a univariate analysis.

Key findings

A higher proportion of COVID-19–positive patients had low plasma 25(OH)D concentrations, about 90% versus 85% of participants who were negative for COVID-19. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001). Furthermore, the increased likelihood for low vitamin D levels among those positive for COVID-19 held in a multivariate analysis that controlled for demographics and psychiatric and somatic disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 1.50). The difference remained statistically significant (P < .001).

The study also was noteworthy for what it did not find among participants with COVID-19. For example, the prevalence of dementia, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disorders, and hypertension were significantly higher among the COVID-19 negative participants.

“Severe social contacts restrictions that were imposed on all the population and were even more emphasized in this highly vulnerable population” could explain these findings, the researchers noted.

“We assume that following the Israeli Ministry of Health instructions, patients with chronic medical conditions significantly reduced their social contacts” and thereby reduced their infection risk.

In contrast to previous reports, obesity was not a significant factor associated with increased likelihood for COVID-19 infection or hospitalization in the current study.

The researchers also linked low plasma 25(OH)D level to an increased likelihood of hospitalization for COVID-19 infection (crude OR, 2.09; P < .05).

After controlling for demographics and chronic disorders, the aOR decreased to 1.95 (P = .061) in a multivariate analysis. The only factor that remained statistically significant for hospitalization was age over 50 years (aOR, 2.71; P < .001).

Implications and future plans

The large number of participants and the “real world,” population-based design are strengths of the study. Considering potential confounders is another strength, the researchers noted. The retrospective database design was a limitation.

Going forward, Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues will “try to decipher the potential role of vitamin D in prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19” through three additional studies, she said. Also, they would like to conduct a meta-analysis to combine data from different countries to further explore the potential role of vitamin D in COVID-19.

“A compelling case”

“This is a strong study – large, adjusted for confounders, consistent with the biology and other clinical studies of vitamin D, infections, and COVID-19,” Wayne Jonas, MD, a practicing family physician and executive director of Samueli Integrative Health Programs, said in an interview.

Because the research was retrospective and observational, a causative link between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk cannot be interpreted from the findings. “That would need a prospective, randomized study,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved with the current study.

However, “the study makes a compelling case for possibly screening vitamin D levels for judging risk of COVID infection and hospitalization,” Dr. Jonas said, “and the compelling need for a large, randomized vitamin D supplement study to see if it can help prevent infection.”

“Given that vitamin D is largely safe, such a study could be done quickly and on healthy people with minimal risk for harm,” he added.
 

More confounders likely?

“I think the study is of interest,” Naveed Sattar, PhD,  professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who also was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Whilst the authors adjusted for some confounders, there is a strong potential for residual confounding,” said Dr. Sattar, a coauthor of a UK Biobank study that did not find an association between vitamin D stages and COVID-19 infection in multivariate models.

For example, Dr. Sattar said, “Robust adjustment for social class is important since both Vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity are both strongly associated with social class.” Further, it remains unknown when and what time of year the vitamin D concentrations were measured in the current study.

“In the end, only a robust randomized trial can tell us whether vitamin D supplementation helps lessen COVID-19 severity,” Dr. Sattar added. “I am not hopeful we will find this is the case – but I am glad some such trials are [ongoing].”

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern received a COVID-19 Data Sciences Institute grant to support this work. Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Sattar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Low plasma vitamin D levels emerged as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in a large, population-based study.

Participants positive for COVID-19 were 50% more likely to have low vs normal 25(OH)D levels in a multivariate analysis that controlled for other confounders, for example.

The take home message for physicians is to “test patients’ vitamin D levels and keep them optimal for the overall health – as well as for a better immunoresponse to COVID-19,” senior author Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern, PhD, head of the Cancer Genomics and BioComputing of Complex Diseases Lab at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 23 in The FEBS Journal.

Previous and ongoing studies are evaluating a potential role for vitamin D to prevent or minimize the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, building on years of research addressing vitamin D for other viral respiratory infections. The evidence to date regarding COVID-19, primarily observational studies, has yielded mixed results.

Multiple experts weighed in on the controversy in a previous report. Many point out the limitations of observational data, particularly when it comes to ruling out other factors that could affect the severity of COVID-19 infection. In addition, in a video report, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, cited an observational study from three South Asian hospitals that found more severe COVID-19 patients had lower vitamin D levels, as well as other “compelling evidence” suggesting an association.

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues studied data for 7,807 people, of whom 10.1% were COVID-19 positive. They assessed electronic health records for demographics, potential confounders, and outcomes between February 1 and April 30.

Participants positive for COVID-19 tended to be younger and were more likely to be men and live in a lower socioeconomic area, compared with the participants who were negative for COVID-19, in a univariate analysis.

Key findings

A higher proportion of COVID-19–positive patients had low plasma 25(OH)D concentrations, about 90% versus 85% of participants who were negative for COVID-19. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001). Furthermore, the increased likelihood for low vitamin D levels among those positive for COVID-19 held in a multivariate analysis that controlled for demographics and psychiatric and somatic disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 1.50). The difference remained statistically significant (P < .001).

The study also was noteworthy for what it did not find among participants with COVID-19. For example, the prevalence of dementia, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disorders, and hypertension were significantly higher among the COVID-19 negative participants.

“Severe social contacts restrictions that were imposed on all the population and were even more emphasized in this highly vulnerable population” could explain these findings, the researchers noted.

“We assume that following the Israeli Ministry of Health instructions, patients with chronic medical conditions significantly reduced their social contacts” and thereby reduced their infection risk.

In contrast to previous reports, obesity was not a significant factor associated with increased likelihood for COVID-19 infection or hospitalization in the current study.

The researchers also linked low plasma 25(OH)D level to an increased likelihood of hospitalization for COVID-19 infection (crude OR, 2.09; P < .05).

After controlling for demographics and chronic disorders, the aOR decreased to 1.95 (P = .061) in a multivariate analysis. The only factor that remained statistically significant for hospitalization was age over 50 years (aOR, 2.71; P < .001).

Implications and future plans

The large number of participants and the “real world,” population-based design are strengths of the study. Considering potential confounders is another strength, the researchers noted. The retrospective database design was a limitation.

Going forward, Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues will “try to decipher the potential role of vitamin D in prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19” through three additional studies, she said. Also, they would like to conduct a meta-analysis to combine data from different countries to further explore the potential role of vitamin D in COVID-19.

“A compelling case”

“This is a strong study – large, adjusted for confounders, consistent with the biology and other clinical studies of vitamin D, infections, and COVID-19,” Wayne Jonas, MD, a practicing family physician and executive director of Samueli Integrative Health Programs, said in an interview.

Because the research was retrospective and observational, a causative link between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk cannot be interpreted from the findings. “That would need a prospective, randomized study,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved with the current study.

However, “the study makes a compelling case for possibly screening vitamin D levels for judging risk of COVID infection and hospitalization,” Dr. Jonas said, “and the compelling need for a large, randomized vitamin D supplement study to see if it can help prevent infection.”

“Given that vitamin D is largely safe, such a study could be done quickly and on healthy people with minimal risk for harm,” he added.
 

More confounders likely?

“I think the study is of interest,” Naveed Sattar, PhD,  professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who also was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Whilst the authors adjusted for some confounders, there is a strong potential for residual confounding,” said Dr. Sattar, a coauthor of a UK Biobank study that did not find an association between vitamin D stages and COVID-19 infection in multivariate models.

For example, Dr. Sattar said, “Robust adjustment for social class is important since both Vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity are both strongly associated with social class.” Further, it remains unknown when and what time of year the vitamin D concentrations were measured in the current study.

“In the end, only a robust randomized trial can tell us whether vitamin D supplementation helps lessen COVID-19 severity,” Dr. Sattar added. “I am not hopeful we will find this is the case – but I am glad some such trials are [ongoing].”

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern received a COVID-19 Data Sciences Institute grant to support this work. Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Sattar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Low plasma vitamin D levels emerged as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in a large, population-based study.

Participants positive for COVID-19 were 50% more likely to have low vs normal 25(OH)D levels in a multivariate analysis that controlled for other confounders, for example.

The take home message for physicians is to “test patients’ vitamin D levels and keep them optimal for the overall health – as well as for a better immunoresponse to COVID-19,” senior author Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern, PhD, head of the Cancer Genomics and BioComputing of Complex Diseases Lab at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 23 in The FEBS Journal.

Previous and ongoing studies are evaluating a potential role for vitamin D to prevent or minimize the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, building on years of research addressing vitamin D for other viral respiratory infections. The evidence to date regarding COVID-19, primarily observational studies, has yielded mixed results.

Multiple experts weighed in on the controversy in a previous report. Many point out the limitations of observational data, particularly when it comes to ruling out other factors that could affect the severity of COVID-19 infection. In addition, in a video report, JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, cited an observational study from three South Asian hospitals that found more severe COVID-19 patients had lower vitamin D levels, as well as other “compelling evidence” suggesting an association.

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues studied data for 7,807 people, of whom 10.1% were COVID-19 positive. They assessed electronic health records for demographics, potential confounders, and outcomes between February 1 and April 30.

Participants positive for COVID-19 tended to be younger and were more likely to be men and live in a lower socioeconomic area, compared with the participants who were negative for COVID-19, in a univariate analysis.

Key findings

A higher proportion of COVID-19–positive patients had low plasma 25(OH)D concentrations, about 90% versus 85% of participants who were negative for COVID-19. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001). Furthermore, the increased likelihood for low vitamin D levels among those positive for COVID-19 held in a multivariate analysis that controlled for demographics and psychiatric and somatic disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 1.50). The difference remained statistically significant (P < .001).

The study also was noteworthy for what it did not find among participants with COVID-19. For example, the prevalence of dementia, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disorders, and hypertension were significantly higher among the COVID-19 negative participants.

“Severe social contacts restrictions that were imposed on all the population and were even more emphasized in this highly vulnerable population” could explain these findings, the researchers noted.

“We assume that following the Israeli Ministry of Health instructions, patients with chronic medical conditions significantly reduced their social contacts” and thereby reduced their infection risk.

In contrast to previous reports, obesity was not a significant factor associated with increased likelihood for COVID-19 infection or hospitalization in the current study.

The researchers also linked low plasma 25(OH)D level to an increased likelihood of hospitalization for COVID-19 infection (crude OR, 2.09; P < .05).

After controlling for demographics and chronic disorders, the aOR decreased to 1.95 (P = .061) in a multivariate analysis. The only factor that remained statistically significant for hospitalization was age over 50 years (aOR, 2.71; P < .001).

Implications and future plans

The large number of participants and the “real world,” population-based design are strengths of the study. Considering potential confounders is another strength, the researchers noted. The retrospective database design was a limitation.

Going forward, Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern and colleagues will “try to decipher the potential role of vitamin D in prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19” through three additional studies, she said. Also, they would like to conduct a meta-analysis to combine data from different countries to further explore the potential role of vitamin D in COVID-19.

“A compelling case”

“This is a strong study – large, adjusted for confounders, consistent with the biology and other clinical studies of vitamin D, infections, and COVID-19,” Wayne Jonas, MD, a practicing family physician and executive director of Samueli Integrative Health Programs, said in an interview.

Because the research was retrospective and observational, a causative link between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 risk cannot be interpreted from the findings. “That would need a prospective, randomized study,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved with the current study.

However, “the study makes a compelling case for possibly screening vitamin D levels for judging risk of COVID infection and hospitalization,” Dr. Jonas said, “and the compelling need for a large, randomized vitamin D supplement study to see if it can help prevent infection.”

“Given that vitamin D is largely safe, such a study could be done quickly and on healthy people with minimal risk for harm,” he added.
 

More confounders likely?

“I think the study is of interest,” Naveed Sattar, PhD,  professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who also was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Whilst the authors adjusted for some confounders, there is a strong potential for residual confounding,” said Dr. Sattar, a coauthor of a UK Biobank study that did not find an association between vitamin D stages and COVID-19 infection in multivariate models.

For example, Dr. Sattar said, “Robust adjustment for social class is important since both Vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity are both strongly associated with social class.” Further, it remains unknown when and what time of year the vitamin D concentrations were measured in the current study.

“In the end, only a robust randomized trial can tell us whether vitamin D supplementation helps lessen COVID-19 severity,” Dr. Sattar added. “I am not hopeful we will find this is the case – but I am glad some such trials are [ongoing].”

Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern received a COVID-19 Data Sciences Institute grant to support this work. Dr. Frenkel-Morgenstern, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Sattar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

Parents who refuse one indicated neonatal preventive therapy often refuse others even when the reasons are different, according to an update at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine virtual. This finding indicates the value of preparing policies and strategies to guide parents to appropriate medical decisions in advance.

“Elimination of nonmedical exceptions to vaccinations and intramuscular vitamin K made it into two of the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] top 10 public health resolutions, most likely because refusal rates are going up,” reported Ha N. Nguyen, MD, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Importantly, state laws differ. For example, erythromycin ointment is mandated in neonates for prevention of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum in many states, including New York, where it can be administered without consent, according to Dr. Nguyen. Conversely, California does not mandate this preventive therapy even though the law does not offer medico-legal protection to providers if it is not given.

“There is a glaring gap in the way the [California] law was written,” said Dr. Nguyen, who used this as an example of why protocols and strategies to reduce risk of parental refusal of neonatal therapies should be informed by, and consistent with, state laws.

Because of the low levels of vitamin K in infants, the rate of bleeding within the first few months of life is nearly 2%, according to figures cited by Dr. Nguyen. It falls to less than 0.001% with administration of intramuscular vitamin K.

Families who refuse intramuscular vitamin K often state that they understand the risks, but data from a survey Dr. Nguyen cited found this is not necessarily true. In this survey, about two-thirds knew that bleeding was the risk, but less than 20% understood bleeding risks included intracranial hemorrhage, and less than 10% were aware that there was potential for a fatal outcome.

“This is a huge piece of the puzzle for counseling,” Dr. Nguyen said. “The discussion with parents should explicitly involve the explanation that the risks include brain bleeds and death.”

Although most infant bleeds attributed to low vitamin K stores are mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal, intracranial hemorrhage does occur, and these outcomes can be devastating. Up to 25% of infants who experience an intracranial hemorrhage die, while 60% of those who survive have some degree of neurodevelopmental impairment, according to Dr. Nguyen.

Oral vitamin K, which requires multiple doses, is not an appropriate substitute for the recommended single injection of the intramuscular formulation. The one study that compared intramuscular and oral vitamin K did not prove equivalence, and no oral vitamin K products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Nguyen reported.

“We do know confidently that oral vitamin K does often result in poor adherence,” she said,

In a recent review article of parental vitamin K refusal, one of the most significant predictors of refusal of any recommended neonatal preventive treatment was refusal of another. According to data in that article, summarized by Dr. Nguyen, 68% of the parents who declined intramuscular vitamin K also declined erythromycin ointment, and more than 90% declined hepatitis B vaccine.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.