Becky McCall

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Screening for Staphylococcus aureus, decolonization, and use of teicoplanin for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis among patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) lowered the number of prosthetic joint infections in elderly patients undergoing surgery for fracture of the femur.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, which was one of the few awarded the accolade of “top-rated poster.”

“We actually found that with our intervention, all prosthetic joint infections decreased, not just the Staphylococcus aureus but those due to MRSA, too,” Natividad Benito, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, said in an interview. “We’re pleased with these results because prosthetic joint infections present such a complicated situation for patients and surgeons. This is also a relatively easy intervention to use, and with time, even the PCR [polymerase chain reaction] technology will become cheaper. Now, in our hospital, prosthetic joint infections are rare.”

At Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, around 200 hip hemiarthroplasties are performed per year. Preceding the intervention, the hospital recorded 11 prosthetic joint infections, with up to five infections due to S. aureus and up to four due to MRSA.

The intervention was introduced in 2016. After 2 years, there were no cases of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus; in 2018 there, was one case of prosthetic joint infection due to MRSA. In 2019, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, but it was due neither to S. aureus nor MRSA. In 2020 and 2021, there was one infection each year that was due to MRSA.

Jesús Rodríguez Baño, MD, head of the infectious diseases division, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena at the University of Seville, Spain, who was not involved in the study, explained that for patients with hip fracture, “the time frame in which colonization can be studied is too short using traditional methods. Prosthetic joint infections in this population have a devastating effect, with not negligible mortality and very important morbidity and health care costs.”

Referring to the significant reduction in the rate of S. aureus prosthetic joint infections in the postintervention period, Dr. Rodríguez Baño said in an interview, “The results are sound, and the important reduction in infection risk invites for the development of a multicenter, randomized trial to confirm these interesting results.

“The authors are commended for measuring the impact of applying a well-justified preventive protocol,” Dr. Rodríguez Baño added. However, the study has some limitations: “It was performed in one center, it was not randomized, and control for potential confounders is needed.”
 

Decolonization in an emergency femur fracture

This study addressed a particular need in residents of Spain’s long-term care facilities. In 2016, the prevalence of MRSA was high.

Roughly one-third of the general population carry S. aureus in their noses. In care homes, the rate of MRSA is higher than in the general population, at around 30% of those with S. aureus. In Spain, recommendations for patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty advise S. aureus decolonization – which can take 5 days – to prevent surgical site infections.

“The problem with the elderly population is not only have they a higher incidence of MRSA but that the surgical prophylaxis is inadequate for MRSA,” Dr. Benito pointed out.

Many patients in long-term care facilities are elderly and frail and are at greater risk of fracture. Unlike elective hip surgery, in which patients are asked to undergo decolonization over the 5 days prior to their operation, with emergent femur fractures, there is insufficient time for such preparation. “These patients with femur fractures need surgery as soon as possible,” said Dr. Benito.

No studies have been conducted to determine the best way to minimize infection risk from S. aureus and MRSA for patients undergoing emergency hip hemiarthroplasty surgery to treat femoral fractures.

In the current study, Dr. Benito and coauthors assessed whether a bundle of measures – including rapid detection of S. aureus nasal carriage by PCR upon arrival in the emergency setting, followed by decolonization of carriers using a topical treatment in the nose and a prescription of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (adapted antibiotic prophylaxis for MRSA) – reduces the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after surgery.

The quasi-experimental single-center study included patients admitted to the emergency department at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau. The PCR was rapid, with a turnaround of just 1.5 hours. Decolonization of S. aureus carriers was carried out using nasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine gluconate bathing, which was started immediately. It was used for a 5 days and was usually continued throughout and after surgery.

Patients carrying MRSA received teicoplanin as optimal surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis instead of cefazolin. The intervention did not interfere with the timing of surgery. The study’s principal outcomes were overall incidence of prosthetic joint infections and the incidence of those specifically caused by S. aureus and MRSA.

The researchers compared findings regarding these outcomes over 5 consecutive years of the intervention to outcomes during 4 consecutive years prior to the intervention, which started in 2016.

During 2016-2020, from 22% to 31% of the overall number of patients requiring hip hemiarthroplasty were referred from long-term care facilities. From 25% to 29% of these patients tested positive for S. aureus on PCR, and of these, 33%-64% had MRSA.

There were 772 surgical procedures from 2012 to 2015 and 786 from 2017 to 2020.

Prior to the intervention, over the years 2012-2014, S. aureus caused 36%-50% of prosthetic joint infections; 25%-100% of the S. aureus infections were MRSA. This decreased significantly after the intervention.

During 2016-2020, there was an average of 14 prosthetic joint infections (1.5%), compared to 36 (4.7%) in 2012-2015 (P < .001). Similarly, the incidence of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus dropped to 0.3% from 1.8% (P < .002). The incidence of MRSA prosthetic joint infections was 0.3% for 2016-2020, versus 1.2% for 2012-2015 (P = .012).

The years 2018, 2020, and 2021 each saw one case of infection due to MRSA. They were most likely due to “the intervention not being performed properly in all cases,” said Dr. Benito.

A prosthetic joint infection is very serious for the patient. “It means reoperating, because antibiotics are not enough to clear the infection. The biofilm and pus of the infection need to be cleaned out, a new prosthesis is needed, after which more antibiotics are needed for around 2 months, which can be hard to tolerate, and even then, the infection might not be eradicated,” explained Dr. Benito. “Many of these people are old and frail, and mortality can be significant. Getting a prosthetic joint infection is catastrophic for these patients.”

Dr. Benito and Dr. Rodríguez-Baño have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Screening for Staphylococcus aureus, decolonization, and use of teicoplanin for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis among patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) lowered the number of prosthetic joint infections in elderly patients undergoing surgery for fracture of the femur.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, which was one of the few awarded the accolade of “top-rated poster.”

“We actually found that with our intervention, all prosthetic joint infections decreased, not just the Staphylococcus aureus but those due to MRSA, too,” Natividad Benito, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, said in an interview. “We’re pleased with these results because prosthetic joint infections present such a complicated situation for patients and surgeons. This is also a relatively easy intervention to use, and with time, even the PCR [polymerase chain reaction] technology will become cheaper. Now, in our hospital, prosthetic joint infections are rare.”

At Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, around 200 hip hemiarthroplasties are performed per year. Preceding the intervention, the hospital recorded 11 prosthetic joint infections, with up to five infections due to S. aureus and up to four due to MRSA.

The intervention was introduced in 2016. After 2 years, there were no cases of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus; in 2018 there, was one case of prosthetic joint infection due to MRSA. In 2019, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, but it was due neither to S. aureus nor MRSA. In 2020 and 2021, there was one infection each year that was due to MRSA.

Jesús Rodríguez Baño, MD, head of the infectious diseases division, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena at the University of Seville, Spain, who was not involved in the study, explained that for patients with hip fracture, “the time frame in which colonization can be studied is too short using traditional methods. Prosthetic joint infections in this population have a devastating effect, with not negligible mortality and very important morbidity and health care costs.”

Referring to the significant reduction in the rate of S. aureus prosthetic joint infections in the postintervention period, Dr. Rodríguez Baño said in an interview, “The results are sound, and the important reduction in infection risk invites for the development of a multicenter, randomized trial to confirm these interesting results.

“The authors are commended for measuring the impact of applying a well-justified preventive protocol,” Dr. Rodríguez Baño added. However, the study has some limitations: “It was performed in one center, it was not randomized, and control for potential confounders is needed.”
 

Decolonization in an emergency femur fracture

This study addressed a particular need in residents of Spain’s long-term care facilities. In 2016, the prevalence of MRSA was high.

Roughly one-third of the general population carry S. aureus in their noses. In care homes, the rate of MRSA is higher than in the general population, at around 30% of those with S. aureus. In Spain, recommendations for patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty advise S. aureus decolonization – which can take 5 days – to prevent surgical site infections.

“The problem with the elderly population is not only have they a higher incidence of MRSA but that the surgical prophylaxis is inadequate for MRSA,” Dr. Benito pointed out.

Many patients in long-term care facilities are elderly and frail and are at greater risk of fracture. Unlike elective hip surgery, in which patients are asked to undergo decolonization over the 5 days prior to their operation, with emergent femur fractures, there is insufficient time for such preparation. “These patients with femur fractures need surgery as soon as possible,” said Dr. Benito.

No studies have been conducted to determine the best way to minimize infection risk from S. aureus and MRSA for patients undergoing emergency hip hemiarthroplasty surgery to treat femoral fractures.

In the current study, Dr. Benito and coauthors assessed whether a bundle of measures – including rapid detection of S. aureus nasal carriage by PCR upon arrival in the emergency setting, followed by decolonization of carriers using a topical treatment in the nose and a prescription of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (adapted antibiotic prophylaxis for MRSA) – reduces the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after surgery.

The quasi-experimental single-center study included patients admitted to the emergency department at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau. The PCR was rapid, with a turnaround of just 1.5 hours. Decolonization of S. aureus carriers was carried out using nasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine gluconate bathing, which was started immediately. It was used for a 5 days and was usually continued throughout and after surgery.

Patients carrying MRSA received teicoplanin as optimal surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis instead of cefazolin. The intervention did not interfere with the timing of surgery. The study’s principal outcomes were overall incidence of prosthetic joint infections and the incidence of those specifically caused by S. aureus and MRSA.

The researchers compared findings regarding these outcomes over 5 consecutive years of the intervention to outcomes during 4 consecutive years prior to the intervention, which started in 2016.

During 2016-2020, from 22% to 31% of the overall number of patients requiring hip hemiarthroplasty were referred from long-term care facilities. From 25% to 29% of these patients tested positive for S. aureus on PCR, and of these, 33%-64% had MRSA.

There were 772 surgical procedures from 2012 to 2015 and 786 from 2017 to 2020.

Prior to the intervention, over the years 2012-2014, S. aureus caused 36%-50% of prosthetic joint infections; 25%-100% of the S. aureus infections were MRSA. This decreased significantly after the intervention.

During 2016-2020, there was an average of 14 prosthetic joint infections (1.5%), compared to 36 (4.7%) in 2012-2015 (P < .001). Similarly, the incidence of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus dropped to 0.3% from 1.8% (P < .002). The incidence of MRSA prosthetic joint infections was 0.3% for 2016-2020, versus 1.2% for 2012-2015 (P = .012).

The years 2018, 2020, and 2021 each saw one case of infection due to MRSA. They were most likely due to “the intervention not being performed properly in all cases,” said Dr. Benito.

A prosthetic joint infection is very serious for the patient. “It means reoperating, because antibiotics are not enough to clear the infection. The biofilm and pus of the infection need to be cleaned out, a new prosthesis is needed, after which more antibiotics are needed for around 2 months, which can be hard to tolerate, and even then, the infection might not be eradicated,” explained Dr. Benito. “Many of these people are old and frail, and mortality can be significant. Getting a prosthetic joint infection is catastrophic for these patients.”

Dr. Benito and Dr. Rodríguez-Baño have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Screening for Staphylococcus aureus, decolonization, and use of teicoplanin for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis among patients with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) lowered the number of prosthetic joint infections in elderly patients undergoing surgery for fracture of the femur.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, which was one of the few awarded the accolade of “top-rated poster.”

“We actually found that with our intervention, all prosthetic joint infections decreased, not just the Staphylococcus aureus but those due to MRSA, too,” Natividad Benito, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, said in an interview. “We’re pleased with these results because prosthetic joint infections present such a complicated situation for patients and surgeons. This is also a relatively easy intervention to use, and with time, even the PCR [polymerase chain reaction] technology will become cheaper. Now, in our hospital, prosthetic joint infections are rare.”

At Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, around 200 hip hemiarthroplasties are performed per year. Preceding the intervention, the hospital recorded 11 prosthetic joint infections, with up to five infections due to S. aureus and up to four due to MRSA.

The intervention was introduced in 2016. After 2 years, there were no cases of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus; in 2018 there, was one case of prosthetic joint infection due to MRSA. In 2019, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, but it was due neither to S. aureus nor MRSA. In 2020 and 2021, there was one infection each year that was due to MRSA.

Jesús Rodríguez Baño, MD, head of the infectious diseases division, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena at the University of Seville, Spain, who was not involved in the study, explained that for patients with hip fracture, “the time frame in which colonization can be studied is too short using traditional methods. Prosthetic joint infections in this population have a devastating effect, with not negligible mortality and very important morbidity and health care costs.”

Referring to the significant reduction in the rate of S. aureus prosthetic joint infections in the postintervention period, Dr. Rodríguez Baño said in an interview, “The results are sound, and the important reduction in infection risk invites for the development of a multicenter, randomized trial to confirm these interesting results.

“The authors are commended for measuring the impact of applying a well-justified preventive protocol,” Dr. Rodríguez Baño added. However, the study has some limitations: “It was performed in one center, it was not randomized, and control for potential confounders is needed.”
 

Decolonization in an emergency femur fracture

This study addressed a particular need in residents of Spain’s long-term care facilities. In 2016, the prevalence of MRSA was high.

Roughly one-third of the general population carry S. aureus in their noses. In care homes, the rate of MRSA is higher than in the general population, at around 30% of those with S. aureus. In Spain, recommendations for patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty advise S. aureus decolonization – which can take 5 days – to prevent surgical site infections.

“The problem with the elderly population is not only have they a higher incidence of MRSA but that the surgical prophylaxis is inadequate for MRSA,” Dr. Benito pointed out.

Many patients in long-term care facilities are elderly and frail and are at greater risk of fracture. Unlike elective hip surgery, in which patients are asked to undergo decolonization over the 5 days prior to their operation, with emergent femur fractures, there is insufficient time for such preparation. “These patients with femur fractures need surgery as soon as possible,” said Dr. Benito.

No studies have been conducted to determine the best way to minimize infection risk from S. aureus and MRSA for patients undergoing emergency hip hemiarthroplasty surgery to treat femoral fractures.

In the current study, Dr. Benito and coauthors assessed whether a bundle of measures – including rapid detection of S. aureus nasal carriage by PCR upon arrival in the emergency setting, followed by decolonization of carriers using a topical treatment in the nose and a prescription of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (adapted antibiotic prophylaxis for MRSA) – reduces the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after surgery.

The quasi-experimental single-center study included patients admitted to the emergency department at Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau. The PCR was rapid, with a turnaround of just 1.5 hours. Decolonization of S. aureus carriers was carried out using nasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine gluconate bathing, which was started immediately. It was used for a 5 days and was usually continued throughout and after surgery.

Patients carrying MRSA received teicoplanin as optimal surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis instead of cefazolin. The intervention did not interfere with the timing of surgery. The study’s principal outcomes were overall incidence of prosthetic joint infections and the incidence of those specifically caused by S. aureus and MRSA.

The researchers compared findings regarding these outcomes over 5 consecutive years of the intervention to outcomes during 4 consecutive years prior to the intervention, which started in 2016.

During 2016-2020, from 22% to 31% of the overall number of patients requiring hip hemiarthroplasty were referred from long-term care facilities. From 25% to 29% of these patients tested positive for S. aureus on PCR, and of these, 33%-64% had MRSA.

There were 772 surgical procedures from 2012 to 2015 and 786 from 2017 to 2020.

Prior to the intervention, over the years 2012-2014, S. aureus caused 36%-50% of prosthetic joint infections; 25%-100% of the S. aureus infections were MRSA. This decreased significantly after the intervention.

During 2016-2020, there was an average of 14 prosthetic joint infections (1.5%), compared to 36 (4.7%) in 2012-2015 (P < .001). Similarly, the incidence of prosthetic joint infections due to S. aureus dropped to 0.3% from 1.8% (P < .002). The incidence of MRSA prosthetic joint infections was 0.3% for 2016-2020, versus 1.2% for 2012-2015 (P = .012).

The years 2018, 2020, and 2021 each saw one case of infection due to MRSA. They were most likely due to “the intervention not being performed properly in all cases,” said Dr. Benito.

A prosthetic joint infection is very serious for the patient. “It means reoperating, because antibiotics are not enough to clear the infection. The biofilm and pus of the infection need to be cleaned out, a new prosthesis is needed, after which more antibiotics are needed for around 2 months, which can be hard to tolerate, and even then, the infection might not be eradicated,” explained Dr. Benito. “Many of these people are old and frail, and mortality can be significant. Getting a prosthetic joint infection is catastrophic for these patients.”

Dr. Benito and Dr. Rodríguez-Baño have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and more than half of antibiotic prescriptions for Hispanic/Latinx patients are inappropriate, according to data from a study of antibiotic prescribing habits in U.S. doctors’ offices, hospital clinics, and emergency departments.

Eric Young, PharmD, PhD, from the University of Texas at Austin, and UT Health, San Antonio, presented his work as a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022.

“We were really surprised mainly by the racial findings, because Black patients have the highest overall and the highest inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics,” he told this news organization. “There was also a difference seen for age [across all ethnicities].”

Pediatric patients were found to have high overall prescribing but, notably, the lowest inappropriate prescribing among all the patient groups, reported Dr. Young. “This is interesting because oftentimes we think the more antibiotics are prescribed, then surely the greater the inappropriate prescribing would be too, but pediatricians actually have one of the lowest rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. They do a great job.”

The study included more than 7 billion patient visits, 11.3% of which involved an antibiotic prescription.

The rate of antibiotic prescribing was 122 per 1,000 visits in Black patients and 139 per 1,000 visits in Hispanic patients, while in White patients, the rate was 109 per 1,000 visits. The rate was 114 per 1,000 visits in patients younger than 18 years and 170 per 1,000 visits in females.

Dr. Young found that almost 64% of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and 58% for Hispanic patients were inappropriate. For White patients, the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was 56%. Similarly, 74% of prescriptions dispensed to patients aged 65 years and older and 58% to males were deemed inappropriate.

Kajal Bhakta, PharmD, BCACP, ambulatory care clinical pharmacist, University Health System, UT Health Science Center San Antonio, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that antibiotics are frequently prescribed without confirmation of an infection, owing to the fact that the verification process may delay care, especially in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Bhakta said that overprescribing in the elderly population and in certain ethnic groups was “likely due to socioeconomic and cultural factors. These prescribing methods may lead to unnecessary drug side effects and/or antimicrobial resistance.”

Regarding the patient-doctor consultation process, she pointed out that “older patients may have trouble describing their symptoms, and when those symptoms remain unresolved, providers may be more inclined to prescribe antibiotics to help.”

Sometimes overprescribing can occur because of the logistics involved in getting to the doctor’s office in the outpatient setting. “Sometimes patients struggle with transportation, as two separate trips to the doctor and pharmacy may not be feasible. Additionally, these same patients may have limited access to health care and therefore may use an urgent care facility for their acute infection–like symptoms,” Dr. Bhakta explained.

Dr. Young, who is of Asian descent, first became interested in disparities in health care when he noticed that ethnic minority groups showed greater hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination. “I noticed that there weren’t many Asians involved in previous trials and realized at this point that disparities were rampant.”

Dr. Young had been involved in investigating the overall use and the inappropriate use of antibiotics across the whole U.S. population when his interest in health disparities prompted him to study these patterns in specific demographic groups.

“Most previous data are derived from inpatient studies where the physician is giving the antibiotics,” said Dr. Young, who looked specifically at outpatient prescribing.

Dr. Young used prescribing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which covers more than 5.7 billion adult (aged 18 and older) and 1.3 billion child visits to outpatient practices between 2009 and 2016 across all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.

He gathered patient data on ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnostic codes for infections and for diagnoses that “appeared like infections.” All of the patients who were included had received at least one oral antibiotic. Antibiotic prescribing was defined as visits that included an antibiotic per 1,000 total patient visits.

On the basis of previous research, Dr. Young and his colleagues then determined whether each antibiotic prescription was appropriate, possibly appropriate, or inappropriate. Patient demographics included age (younger than 18 years, 18-64 years, and older than 64 years), sex (male or female), race, and ethnicity (White, Black, more than one race, Hispanic/Latinx, and other). These data were used to evaluate overall and inappropriate use.

“The health care community needs to be really careful with the judicious use of antibiotics,” Dr. Young said. “We have good guidelines on antimicrobial stewardship both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, but sometimes we overlook the disparities and cultural implications held by some patients.”

Typical examples of socioeconomic and cultural factors at play included patients not being able to afford the antibiotics, having limited access to care, or not returning for a follow-up visit for whatever reason.

“Patients of Black and Hispanic descent often don’t have the same degree of established care that many White patients have,” Dr. Young noted.

In the future, Dr. Young wants to conduct research into whether patients are actually taking their prescribed antibiotics, as well as their outcomes. For example, he would like to investigate whether rates of antibiotic resistance or Clostridioides difficile infection are higher among Black patients.

Dr. Young and Dr. Bhakta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and more than half of antibiotic prescriptions for Hispanic/Latinx patients are inappropriate, according to data from a study of antibiotic prescribing habits in U.S. doctors’ offices, hospital clinics, and emergency departments.

Eric Young, PharmD, PhD, from the University of Texas at Austin, and UT Health, San Antonio, presented his work as a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022.

“We were really surprised mainly by the racial findings, because Black patients have the highest overall and the highest inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics,” he told this news organization. “There was also a difference seen for age [across all ethnicities].”

Pediatric patients were found to have high overall prescribing but, notably, the lowest inappropriate prescribing among all the patient groups, reported Dr. Young. “This is interesting because oftentimes we think the more antibiotics are prescribed, then surely the greater the inappropriate prescribing would be too, but pediatricians actually have one of the lowest rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. They do a great job.”

The study included more than 7 billion patient visits, 11.3% of which involved an antibiotic prescription.

The rate of antibiotic prescribing was 122 per 1,000 visits in Black patients and 139 per 1,000 visits in Hispanic patients, while in White patients, the rate was 109 per 1,000 visits. The rate was 114 per 1,000 visits in patients younger than 18 years and 170 per 1,000 visits in females.

Dr. Young found that almost 64% of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and 58% for Hispanic patients were inappropriate. For White patients, the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was 56%. Similarly, 74% of prescriptions dispensed to patients aged 65 years and older and 58% to males were deemed inappropriate.

Kajal Bhakta, PharmD, BCACP, ambulatory care clinical pharmacist, University Health System, UT Health Science Center San Antonio, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that antibiotics are frequently prescribed without confirmation of an infection, owing to the fact that the verification process may delay care, especially in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Bhakta said that overprescribing in the elderly population and in certain ethnic groups was “likely due to socioeconomic and cultural factors. These prescribing methods may lead to unnecessary drug side effects and/or antimicrobial resistance.”

Regarding the patient-doctor consultation process, she pointed out that “older patients may have trouble describing their symptoms, and when those symptoms remain unresolved, providers may be more inclined to prescribe antibiotics to help.”

Sometimes overprescribing can occur because of the logistics involved in getting to the doctor’s office in the outpatient setting. “Sometimes patients struggle with transportation, as two separate trips to the doctor and pharmacy may not be feasible. Additionally, these same patients may have limited access to health care and therefore may use an urgent care facility for their acute infection–like symptoms,” Dr. Bhakta explained.

Dr. Young, who is of Asian descent, first became interested in disparities in health care when he noticed that ethnic minority groups showed greater hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination. “I noticed that there weren’t many Asians involved in previous trials and realized at this point that disparities were rampant.”

Dr. Young had been involved in investigating the overall use and the inappropriate use of antibiotics across the whole U.S. population when his interest in health disparities prompted him to study these patterns in specific demographic groups.

“Most previous data are derived from inpatient studies where the physician is giving the antibiotics,” said Dr. Young, who looked specifically at outpatient prescribing.

Dr. Young used prescribing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which covers more than 5.7 billion adult (aged 18 and older) and 1.3 billion child visits to outpatient practices between 2009 and 2016 across all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.

He gathered patient data on ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnostic codes for infections and for diagnoses that “appeared like infections.” All of the patients who were included had received at least one oral antibiotic. Antibiotic prescribing was defined as visits that included an antibiotic per 1,000 total patient visits.

On the basis of previous research, Dr. Young and his colleagues then determined whether each antibiotic prescription was appropriate, possibly appropriate, or inappropriate. Patient demographics included age (younger than 18 years, 18-64 years, and older than 64 years), sex (male or female), race, and ethnicity (White, Black, more than one race, Hispanic/Latinx, and other). These data were used to evaluate overall and inappropriate use.

“The health care community needs to be really careful with the judicious use of antibiotics,” Dr. Young said. “We have good guidelines on antimicrobial stewardship both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, but sometimes we overlook the disparities and cultural implications held by some patients.”

Typical examples of socioeconomic and cultural factors at play included patients not being able to afford the antibiotics, having limited access to care, or not returning for a follow-up visit for whatever reason.

“Patients of Black and Hispanic descent often don’t have the same degree of established care that many White patients have,” Dr. Young noted.

In the future, Dr. Young wants to conduct research into whether patients are actually taking their prescribed antibiotics, as well as their outcomes. For example, he would like to investigate whether rates of antibiotic resistance or Clostridioides difficile infection are higher among Black patients.

Dr. Young and Dr. Bhakta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and more than half of antibiotic prescriptions for Hispanic/Latinx patients are inappropriate, according to data from a study of antibiotic prescribing habits in U.S. doctors’ offices, hospital clinics, and emergency departments.

Eric Young, PharmD, PhD, from the University of Texas at Austin, and UT Health, San Antonio, presented his work as a poster at the 32nd European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022.

“We were really surprised mainly by the racial findings, because Black patients have the highest overall and the highest inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics,” he told this news organization. “There was also a difference seen for age [across all ethnicities].”

Pediatric patients were found to have high overall prescribing but, notably, the lowest inappropriate prescribing among all the patient groups, reported Dr. Young. “This is interesting because oftentimes we think the more antibiotics are prescribed, then surely the greater the inappropriate prescribing would be too, but pediatricians actually have one of the lowest rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. They do a great job.”

The study included more than 7 billion patient visits, 11.3% of which involved an antibiotic prescription.

The rate of antibiotic prescribing was 122 per 1,000 visits in Black patients and 139 per 1,000 visits in Hispanic patients, while in White patients, the rate was 109 per 1,000 visits. The rate was 114 per 1,000 visits in patients younger than 18 years and 170 per 1,000 visits in females.

Dr. Young found that almost 64% of antibiotic prescriptions written for Black patients and 58% for Hispanic patients were inappropriate. For White patients, the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was 56%. Similarly, 74% of prescriptions dispensed to patients aged 65 years and older and 58% to males were deemed inappropriate.

Kajal Bhakta, PharmD, BCACP, ambulatory care clinical pharmacist, University Health System, UT Health Science Center San Antonio, who was not involved in the study, pointed out that antibiotics are frequently prescribed without confirmation of an infection, owing to the fact that the verification process may delay care, especially in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Bhakta said that overprescribing in the elderly population and in certain ethnic groups was “likely due to socioeconomic and cultural factors. These prescribing methods may lead to unnecessary drug side effects and/or antimicrobial resistance.”

Regarding the patient-doctor consultation process, she pointed out that “older patients may have trouble describing their symptoms, and when those symptoms remain unresolved, providers may be more inclined to prescribe antibiotics to help.”

Sometimes overprescribing can occur because of the logistics involved in getting to the doctor’s office in the outpatient setting. “Sometimes patients struggle with transportation, as two separate trips to the doctor and pharmacy may not be feasible. Additionally, these same patients may have limited access to health care and therefore may use an urgent care facility for their acute infection–like symptoms,” Dr. Bhakta explained.

Dr. Young, who is of Asian descent, first became interested in disparities in health care when he noticed that ethnic minority groups showed greater hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination. “I noticed that there weren’t many Asians involved in previous trials and realized at this point that disparities were rampant.”

Dr. Young had been involved in investigating the overall use and the inappropriate use of antibiotics across the whole U.S. population when his interest in health disparities prompted him to study these patterns in specific demographic groups.

“Most previous data are derived from inpatient studies where the physician is giving the antibiotics,” said Dr. Young, who looked specifically at outpatient prescribing.

Dr. Young used prescribing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which covers more than 5.7 billion adult (aged 18 and older) and 1.3 billion child visits to outpatient practices between 2009 and 2016 across all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.

He gathered patient data on ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnostic codes for infections and for diagnoses that “appeared like infections.” All of the patients who were included had received at least one oral antibiotic. Antibiotic prescribing was defined as visits that included an antibiotic per 1,000 total patient visits.

On the basis of previous research, Dr. Young and his colleagues then determined whether each antibiotic prescription was appropriate, possibly appropriate, or inappropriate. Patient demographics included age (younger than 18 years, 18-64 years, and older than 64 years), sex (male or female), race, and ethnicity (White, Black, more than one race, Hispanic/Latinx, and other). These data were used to evaluate overall and inappropriate use.

“The health care community needs to be really careful with the judicious use of antibiotics,” Dr. Young said. “We have good guidelines on antimicrobial stewardship both in the inpatient and outpatient settings, but sometimes we overlook the disparities and cultural implications held by some patients.”

Typical examples of socioeconomic and cultural factors at play included patients not being able to afford the antibiotics, having limited access to care, or not returning for a follow-up visit for whatever reason.

“Patients of Black and Hispanic descent often don’t have the same degree of established care that many White patients have,” Dr. Young noted.

In the future, Dr. Young wants to conduct research into whether patients are actually taking their prescribed antibiotics, as well as their outcomes. For example, he would like to investigate whether rates of antibiotic resistance or Clostridioides difficile infection are higher among Black patients.

Dr. Young and Dr. Bhakta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

A scientific analysis of metabolites from plant-based-diets – especially those rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables – may in the future yield clues as to how such eating patterns lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, finds a new study of more than 8,000 people.

The research looked at healthy, unhealthy, and overall plant-based diets, but only metabolic profiles for the healthy and overall plant-based diets showed an inverse relationship with type 2 diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A primarily “unhealthy” plant-based diet was one including mainly refined grains (e.g., white bread and pasta), fruit juices, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweets/desserts.

“Individual metabolites from consumption of polyphenol-rich plant foods like fruits, vegetables, coffee, and legumes are all closely linked to healthy plant-based diet and lower risk of diabetes,” lead author Frank Hu, MD, said in a press release.

Dr. Hu, of the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues reported their findings in Diabetologia.
 

High-throughput profiling of the metabolome

Given that an individual’s metabolic profile reflects their diet, there is a growing trend in nutritional research to use a technique called high-throughput metabolomics to profile biological samples.

The team conducted an analysis of blood plasma samples and dietary intake using food frequency questionnaires of 10,684 participants from three prospective cohorts (Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study). Participants were predominantly White and middle-aged (mean age 54 years), with a mean body mass index of 25.6 kg/m².

Metabolite profile scores were generated from the blood samples, taken in the 1980s and 1990s, and matched to any cases of incident type 2 diabetes reported during follow-up, which ended in 2016-2017.

The team looked at three different plant-based diets – by definition, higher in plant foods and lower in animal foods – and further categorized them according to the actual foods consumed, to generate an overall plant diet index (PDI), a healthy PDI, or an unhealthy PDI.

In all, 8,827 participants completed the study, and 270 cases of diabetes were reported.

Multi-metabolite profiles were composed of 55 metabolites for the overall PDI, 93 metabolites for healthy PDI, and 75 metabolites for unhealthy PDI.

The findings are that metabolomics can be harnessed and “the identified metabolic profiles could be used to assess adherence to ... plant-based diets as part of type 2 diabetes prevention ... and provide new insights for future investigation,” the researchers concluded.

One coauthor received research support from the California Walnut Commission and Swiss ReManagement; another reported being a scientific consultant to LayerIV. The other authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scientific analysis of metabolites from plant-based-diets – especially those rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables – may in the future yield clues as to how such eating patterns lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, finds a new study of more than 8,000 people.

The research looked at healthy, unhealthy, and overall plant-based diets, but only metabolic profiles for the healthy and overall plant-based diets showed an inverse relationship with type 2 diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A primarily “unhealthy” plant-based diet was one including mainly refined grains (e.g., white bread and pasta), fruit juices, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweets/desserts.

“Individual metabolites from consumption of polyphenol-rich plant foods like fruits, vegetables, coffee, and legumes are all closely linked to healthy plant-based diet and lower risk of diabetes,” lead author Frank Hu, MD, said in a press release.

Dr. Hu, of the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues reported their findings in Diabetologia.
 

High-throughput profiling of the metabolome

Given that an individual’s metabolic profile reflects their diet, there is a growing trend in nutritional research to use a technique called high-throughput metabolomics to profile biological samples.

The team conducted an analysis of blood plasma samples and dietary intake using food frequency questionnaires of 10,684 participants from three prospective cohorts (Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study). Participants were predominantly White and middle-aged (mean age 54 years), with a mean body mass index of 25.6 kg/m².

Metabolite profile scores were generated from the blood samples, taken in the 1980s and 1990s, and matched to any cases of incident type 2 diabetes reported during follow-up, which ended in 2016-2017.

The team looked at three different plant-based diets – by definition, higher in plant foods and lower in animal foods – and further categorized them according to the actual foods consumed, to generate an overall plant diet index (PDI), a healthy PDI, or an unhealthy PDI.

In all, 8,827 participants completed the study, and 270 cases of diabetes were reported.

Multi-metabolite profiles were composed of 55 metabolites for the overall PDI, 93 metabolites for healthy PDI, and 75 metabolites for unhealthy PDI.

The findings are that metabolomics can be harnessed and “the identified metabolic profiles could be used to assess adherence to ... plant-based diets as part of type 2 diabetes prevention ... and provide new insights for future investigation,” the researchers concluded.

One coauthor received research support from the California Walnut Commission and Swiss ReManagement; another reported being a scientific consultant to LayerIV. The other authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scientific analysis of metabolites from plant-based-diets – especially those rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables – may in the future yield clues as to how such eating patterns lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, finds a new study of more than 8,000 people.

The research looked at healthy, unhealthy, and overall plant-based diets, but only metabolic profiles for the healthy and overall plant-based diets showed an inverse relationship with type 2 diabetes.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A primarily “unhealthy” plant-based diet was one including mainly refined grains (e.g., white bread and pasta), fruit juices, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sweets/desserts.

“Individual metabolites from consumption of polyphenol-rich plant foods like fruits, vegetables, coffee, and legumes are all closely linked to healthy plant-based diet and lower risk of diabetes,” lead author Frank Hu, MD, said in a press release.

Dr. Hu, of the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues reported their findings in Diabetologia.
 

High-throughput profiling of the metabolome

Given that an individual’s metabolic profile reflects their diet, there is a growing trend in nutritional research to use a technique called high-throughput metabolomics to profile biological samples.

The team conducted an analysis of blood plasma samples and dietary intake using food frequency questionnaires of 10,684 participants from three prospective cohorts (Nurses’ Health Study, Nurses’ Health Study II, and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study). Participants were predominantly White and middle-aged (mean age 54 years), with a mean body mass index of 25.6 kg/m².

Metabolite profile scores were generated from the blood samples, taken in the 1980s and 1990s, and matched to any cases of incident type 2 diabetes reported during follow-up, which ended in 2016-2017.

The team looked at three different plant-based diets – by definition, higher in plant foods and lower in animal foods – and further categorized them according to the actual foods consumed, to generate an overall plant diet index (PDI), a healthy PDI, or an unhealthy PDI.

In all, 8,827 participants completed the study, and 270 cases of diabetes were reported.

Multi-metabolite profiles were composed of 55 metabolites for the overall PDI, 93 metabolites for healthy PDI, and 75 metabolites for unhealthy PDI.

The findings are that metabolomics can be harnessed and “the identified metabolic profiles could be used to assess adherence to ... plant-based diets as part of type 2 diabetes prevention ... and provide new insights for future investigation,” the researchers concluded.

One coauthor received research support from the California Walnut Commission and Swiss ReManagement; another reported being a scientific consultant to LayerIV. The other authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Long COVID symptoms may differ depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant is behind a person’s infection, a new study shows.

The data from Italy compared long COVID symptoms reported by patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March to December 2020 (when the original, or “Wuhan,” variant was dominant) with those reported by patients infected from January to April 2021 (B.1.1.7-, or Alpha variant-dominant). It showed a substantial change in the pattern of neurological and cognitive/emotional problems – the latter mostly seen with the Alpha variant.

Infectious disease specialist Michele Spinicci, MD, from the University of Florence and Careggi University Hospital, Italy, led the work. “Many of the symptoms reported in this study have been measured [before], but this is the first time they have been linked to different COVID-19 variants,” he told this news organization. “Findings in patients with long COVID were focused on neurological and psychological difficulties.”

However, he pointed out that much remains to be understood about long COVID in terms of symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. 

“Long COVID is a huge area that involves many different fields of medicine, so there is not one single piece of advice to give on management. There’s lots to consider when evaluating a long COVID patient,” he said.

Results showed that when the Alpha variant was the dominant variant, the prevalence of myalgia (10%), dyspnea (42%), brain fog/mental confusion (17%), and anxiety/depression (13%) significantly increased relative to the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant, while anosmia (2%), dysgeusia (4%), and impaired hearing (1%) were less common.

When the wild-type (original, Wuhan) variant was dominant, fatigue (37%), insomnia (16%), dysgeusia (11%), and impaired hearing (5%) were all more common than with the Alpha variant. Dyspnea (33%), brain fog (10%), myalgia (4%), and anxiety/depression (6%) were less common. 

Overall, 76% of the patients in the trial reported at least one persistent symptom, while the most common reported symptoms were dyspnea (37%) and chronic fatigue (36%), followed by insomnia (16%), visual disorders (13%), and brain fog (13%).

The findings come from an early-release abstract that will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, in a few weeks’ time.
 

‘The take-home point’  

Michael A. Horberg, MD, associate medical director, Kaiser Permanente – Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, Maryland, has recently presented data on symptoms seen with long COVID in over 28,000 people, as reported by this news organization, at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2022. These people were infected with the wild-type virus.

Commenting on the study by Dr. Spinicci, he said: “The issue is that as we go along the COVID lifespan from acute to long COVID, what prompts patients to seek medical attention may change. If symptoms are not severe or were not well publicized previously, patients may not see the need to seek care or evaluation. As such, it doesn’t surprise me to find these changes over time, independent of any potential biological activity of the virus or its consequences.”

Dr. Horberg noted that their own study results are consistent with those of Dr. Spinicci et al. from March to December 2020 (original, Wuhan variant). “To me, the take-home point is long COVID is real, and physicians need to be on the lookout for it. However, not all symptoms are due to long COVID, and we need to keep the time course of symptoms during evaluation of such patients.”

Also providing comment on the findings was Debby Bogaert, MD, chair of Pediatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh. Reflecting on whether the symptoms were due to long COVID or another underlying disease, she said: “The number of patients with ongoing symptoms is very high, therefore [it is] unlikely that all of this is re-emergence of underlying or previous health problems. The type of symptoms reported are also as reported by other cohorts, so not unexpected. And irrespective of the root cause, they require care.”

Dr. Bogaert also noted that the data reiterate that COVID-19 is a new disease, and that “new variants might show shifting clinical pictures, not only regarding severity and symptoms of acute disease, but possibly also regarding sequela,” and that this, “underlines the importance of ongoing surveillance of variants, and ongoing evaluation of the acute and long-term clinical picture accompanying these, to ensure we adapt our public health approaches, clinical treatment plans, and long-term follow-up when and where needed.”

Dr. Bogaert stressed that only by keeping track of the changes in symptoms both acute and long-term – by patients and doctors – would the best patient care be provided.

“Patients need to know so they can report these back to their doctors, and doctors need to know over time that the picture of sequela might shift, so sequela are recognized early, and these patients receive the appropriate follow-up treatment,” she said. These shifting patterns might also apply to community patients as well as those hospitalized with COVID-19.
 

Study details

The retrospective, observational study included 428 patients, 59% men, with a mean age of 64 years, who had been treated at the Careggi University Hospital’s post-COVID outpatient service between June 2020 and June 2021, when the original form of SARS-CoV-2, and later the Alpha variant, were circulating, with some overlap.

All patients had been hospitalized with COVID-19 and discharged 4-12 weeks prior to attending the outpatient post-COVID service. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on persistent symptoms at the median of 53 days after being discharged from the hospital. In addition, data on medical history, microbiological and clinical COVID-19 course, self-reported symptoms (at the point of the follow-up visit), and patient demographics were obtained from electronic medical records.
 

Newer variants being studied

Upon analysis of long COVID symptoms according to treatment given during the acute phase using multivariate analysis, increasing oxygen support (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8), use of immunosuppressant drugs (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-28), and female sex (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with a higher risk for long COVID symptoms, while patients with type 2 diabetes (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) had a lower risk of developing long COVID symptoms.

When asked whether the increased anxiety and depression seen with the Alpha variant might be also linked to the fact that people are living through hard times, with lockdowns, economic difficulties, possible illness, and even fatalities among family and friends due to COVID, Dr. Spinicci pointed out that “it’s a preliminary study, and there are lots of factors that we didn’t explore. It’s difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about long COVID because so much remains unknown. There are lots of external and environmental factors in the general population that might contribute to these findings.”

Dr. Spinicci has continued to enroll patients from later periods of the pandemic, including patients who were infected with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re interested in finding out if these other variants are also associated with different phenotypes of long COVID. This study is part of our follow-up program here in the hospital where lots of different specialties are following patients for 20 months,” he said.

Dr. Horberg noted that one criticism of this study is that it was unclear whether the researchers accounted for pre-existing conditions. “They note the co-morbidities in the table 1, but don’t say how they accounted for that in their analyses. We found a lot of what patients were calling ‘long COVID’ were exacerbations of co-morbidities but not a new condition.” 

Dr. Spinicci and his coauthors acknowledged that the study was observational. And, as such, it does not prove cause and effect, and they could not confirm which variant of the virus caused the infection in different patients, which may limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

“Future research should focus on the potential impacts of variants of concern and vaccination status on ongoing symptoms,” Spinicci said.

Early release of an abstract will be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2022, in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26, 2022. Abstract 02768.

Dr. Spinicci and Dr. Horberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bogaert declared that she is on the program committee of ECCMID; she has been a member of SIGN/NICE COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19; and she is involved in multiple ongoing COVID-related studies, both acute and long-term sequela (funding MRC, CSO, ZonMw).

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

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the first use of insulin in humans. Part 1 of this series examined the rivalry behind the discovery and use of insulin.

One hundred years ago, teenager Leonard Thompson was the first patient with type 1 diabetes to be successfully treated with insulin, granting him a reprieve from what was a certain death sentence at the time.

Since then, research has gathered pace. In the century since insulin’s discovery and first use, recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the engineering of the insulin molecule, providing numerous short- and long-acting analog versions. At the same time, technological leaps in automated insulin delivery and monitoring of blood glucose ensure more time with glucose in range and fewer life-threatening complications for those with type 1 diabetes fortunate enough to have access to the technology. 

In spite of these advancements, there is still scope for further evolution of disease management, with the holy grail being the transplant of stem cell–derived islet cells capable of making insulin, ideally encased in some kind of protective device so that immunosuppression is not required.

Indeed, it is not unreasonable to “hope that type 1 diabetes will be a curable disease in the next 100 years,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist who has type 1 diabetes and practices in Portland, Ore.
 

Type 1 diabetes: The past 100 years

The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes has shifted considerably since 1922. A century ago, given that average life expectancy in the United States was around 54 years, it was pretty much the only type of diabetes that doctors encountered. “There was some type 2 diabetes about in heavier people, but the focus was on type 1 diabetes,” noted Dr. Stephens.

Originally called juvenile diabetes because it was thought to only occur in children, “now 50% of people are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes ... over [the age of] 20,” explained Dr. Stephens.

In the United States, around 1.4 million adults 20 years and older, and 187,000 children younger than 20, have the disease, according to data from the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This total represents an increase of nearly 30% from 2017.

Over the years, theories as to the cause, or trigger, for type 1 diabetes “have included cow’s milk and [viral] infections,” said Dr. Stephens. “Most likely, there’s a genetic predisposition and some type of exposure, which creates the perfect storm to trigger disease.”

There are hints that COVID-19 might be precipitating type 1 diabetes in some people. Recently, the CDC found SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes (all types) among youth, but not other acute respiratory infections. And two further studies from different parts of the world have recently identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons remain unclear.

The global CoviDiab registry has also been established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes.

The million-dollar question: Is COVID-19 itself is propagating type 1 diabetes or unmasking a predisposition to the disease sooner? The latter might be associated with a lower type 1 diabetes rate in the future, said Partha Kar, MBBS, OBE, national specialty advisor, diabetes, for National Health Service England.

“Right now, we don’t know the answer. Whichever way you look at it, it is likely there will be a rise in cases, and in countries where insulin is not freely available, healthcare systems need to have supply ready because insulin is lifesaving in type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Kar emphasized.
 

CGMs and automated insulin delivery: A ‘godsend’

A huge change has also been seen, most notably in the past 15 to 20 years, in the technological advancements that can help those with type 1 diabetes live an easier life.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated ways of delivering insulin, such as smart pens and insulin pumps, have made the daily life of a person with type 1 diabetes in the Western world considerably more comfortable.

CGMs provide a constant stream of data to an app, often wirelessly in sync with the insulin pump. However, on a global level, they are only available to a lucky few.

In England, pending National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) approval, any CGM should be available to all eligible patients with type 1 diabetes within the NHS from April 2022, Dr. Kar pointed out. In the United States, CGMs are often unaffordable and access is mostly dependent on a person’s health insurance.

Kersten Hall, PhD, a scientist and U.K.-based medical historian who recently wrote a book, “Insulin, the Crooked Timber” (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2022) uncovering the lesser-known story behind the discovery of insulin, was diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes at the age of 41. Dr. Hall had always found the finger-prick blood glucose test to be a chore but now has a CGM. 

“It’s a total game changer for me: a godsend. I can’t sing its praises enough,” he said. “All it involves is the swipe of the phone and this provides a reading which tells me if my glucose is too low, so I eat something, or too high, so I might [go for] a run.”
 

Brewing insulin at scale

As described by Dr. Hall in his book, the journey from treating Mr. Thompson in 1922 to treating the masses began when biochemist James Collip, MD, PhD, discovered a means of purifying the animal pancreas extracts used to treat the teenager.

But production at scale presented a further challenge. This was overcome in 1924 when Eli Lilly drew on a technique used in the beer brewing process – where pH guides bitterness – to purify and manufacture large amounts of insulin.

By 1936, a range of slower-acting cattle and pig-derived insulins, the first produced by Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, were developed.

However, it took 8,000 lb (approximately 3,600 kg) of pancreas glands from 23,500 animals to make 1 lb (0.5 kg) of insulin, so a more efficient process was badly needed.

Dr. Hall, who is a molecular biologist as well as an author, explains that the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce human insulin, as done by Genentech in the late 70s, was a key development in the story of modern insulin products. Genentech then provided synthetic human insulin for Eli Lilly to conduct clinical trials.

Human insulin most closely resembles porcine insulin structure and function, differing by only one amino acid, while human insulin differs from bovine insulin by three amino acid residues. This synthetic human insulin eliminated the allergies that the animal-derived products sometimes caused.

In the early 1980s, Eli Lilly produced Humulin, the first biosynthetic (made in Escherichia coli, hence the term, “bio”) human insulin.

This technology eventually “allowed for the alteration of specific amino acids in the sequence of the insulin protein to make insulin analogs [synthetic versions grown in E. coli and genetically altered for various properties] that act faster, or more slowly, than normal human insulin. By using the slow- and fast-acting insulins in combination, a patient can control their blood sugar levels with a much greater degree of finesse and precision,” Dr. Hall explained.

Today, a whole range of insulins are available, including ultra–rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, long-acting, ultra–long-acting, and even inhaled insulin, although the latter is expensive, has been associated with side effects, and is less commonly used, according to Dr. Stephens.

Oral insulin formulations are even in the early stages of development, with candidate drugs by Generex and from the Oralis project.

“With insulin therapy, we try to reproduce the normal physiology of the healthy body and pancreas,” Dr. Stephens explained.

Insulin analogs are only made by three companies (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi), and they are generally much more expensive than nonanalog human insulin. In the United Kingdom through the NHS, they cost twice as much.

In the United States today, one of the biggest barriers to proper care of type 1 diabetes is the cost of insulin, which can limit access. With the market controlled by these three large companies, the average cost of a unit of insulin in the United States, according to RAND research, was $98.17 in January 2021, compared with $7.52 in the United Kingdom and $12.00 in Canada. 

Several U.S. states have enacted legislation capping insulin copayments to at, or under, $100 a month. But the federal Build Back Better Framework Act – which would cap copayments for insulin at $35 – currently hangs in the balance.

Alongside these moves, in 2020 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin for type 1 diabetes (and insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes) in children and adults, called Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals). 

Biosimilars (essentially generic versions of branded insulins) are expected to be less expensive than branded analogs, but the indications so far are that they will only be around 20% cheaper.

“I totally fail to understand how the richest country in the world still has a debate about price caps, and we are looking at biosimilar markets to change the debate. This makes no sense to me at all,” stressed Dr. Kar. “For lifesaving drugs, they should be funded by the state.”

Insulin also remains unaffordable for many in numerous low- and middle-income countries, where most patients pay out-of-pocket for medicines. Globally, there are estimated to be around 30 million people who need insulin but cannot afford it.

How near to a cure in the coming decades?

Looking ahead to the coming years, if not the next 100, Dr. Stephens highlighted two important aspects of care.

First, the use of a CGM device in combination with an insulin pump (also known as a closed-loop system or artificial pancreas), where the CGM effectively tells the insulin pump how much insulin to automatically dispense, should revolutionize care.

A number of such closed-loop systems have recently been approved in both the United States, including systems from Medtronic and Omnipod, and Europe.

“I wear one of these and it’s been a life changer for me, but it doesn’t suit everyone because the technology can be cumbersome, but with time, hopefully things will become smaller and more accurate in insulin delivery,” Dr. Stephens added.

The second advance of interest is the development and transplantation of cells that produce insulin.

Dr. Stephens explained that someone living with type 1 diabetes has a lot to think about, not least, doing the math related to insulin requirement. “If we just had cells from a pancreas that could be transplanted and would do that for us, then it would be a total game changer.”

To date, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has successfully treated one patient – who had lived with type 1 diabetes for about 40 years and had recurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia – with an infusion of stem cell–derived differentiated islet cells into his liver. The procedure resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes, with his insulin dose reduced from 34 to 3 units, and his hemoglobin A1c falling from 8.6% to 7.2%.

And although the patient, Brian Shelton, still needs to take immunosuppressive agents to prevent rejection of the stem cell–derived islets, “it’s a whole new life,” he recently told the New York Times.  

Another company called ViaCyte is also working on a similar approach.

Whether this is a cure for type 1 diabetes is still debatable, said Anne Peters, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Is it true? In a word, no. But we are part of the way there, which is much closer than we were 6 months ago.”

There are also ongoing clinical trials of therapeutic interventions to prevent or delay the trajectory from presymptomatic to clinical type 1 diabetes. The most advanced is the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), which was rejected by the FDA in July 2021, but has since been refiled. The company expects to hear from the agency by the end of March 2022 as to whether the resubmission has been accepted.
 

Diabetes specialist nurses/educators keep it human

Dr. Hall said he concurs with the late eminent U.K. diabetes specialist Robert Tattersall’s observation on what he considers one of the most important advances in the management and treatment of type 1 diabetes: the human touch.

Referring to Dr. Tattersall’s book, “Diabetes: A Biography,” Dr. Hall quoted: “If asked what innovation had made the most difference to their lives in the 1980s, patients with type 1 diabetes in England would unhesitatingly have chosen not human insulin, but the spread of diabetes specialist nurses ... these people (mainly women) did more in the last two decades of the 20th century to improve the standard of diabetes care than any other innovation or drug.”

In the United States, diabetes specialist nurses were called diabetes educators until recently, when the name changed to certified diabetes care and education specialist.

“Above all, they have humanized the service and given the patient a say in the otherwise unequal relationship with all-powerful doctors,” concluded Dr. Hall, again quoting Dr. Tattersall.

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

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the first use of insulin in humans. Part 1 of this series examined the rivalry behind the discovery and use of insulin.

One hundred years ago, teenager Leonard Thompson was the first patient with type 1 diabetes to be successfully treated with insulin, granting him a reprieve from what was a certain death sentence at the time.

Since then, research has gathered pace. In the century since insulin’s discovery and first use, recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the engineering of the insulin molecule, providing numerous short- and long-acting analog versions. At the same time, technological leaps in automated insulin delivery and monitoring of blood glucose ensure more time with glucose in range and fewer life-threatening complications for those with type 1 diabetes fortunate enough to have access to the technology. 

In spite of these advancements, there is still scope for further evolution of disease management, with the holy grail being the transplant of stem cell–derived islet cells capable of making insulin, ideally encased in some kind of protective device so that immunosuppression is not required.

Indeed, it is not unreasonable to “hope that type 1 diabetes will be a curable disease in the next 100 years,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist who has type 1 diabetes and practices in Portland, Ore.
 

Type 1 diabetes: The past 100 years

The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes has shifted considerably since 1922. A century ago, given that average life expectancy in the United States was around 54 years, it was pretty much the only type of diabetes that doctors encountered. “There was some type 2 diabetes about in heavier people, but the focus was on type 1 diabetes,” noted Dr. Stephens.

Originally called juvenile diabetes because it was thought to only occur in children, “now 50% of people are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes ... over [the age of] 20,” explained Dr. Stephens.

In the United States, around 1.4 million adults 20 years and older, and 187,000 children younger than 20, have the disease, according to data from the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This total represents an increase of nearly 30% from 2017.

Over the years, theories as to the cause, or trigger, for type 1 diabetes “have included cow’s milk and [viral] infections,” said Dr. Stephens. “Most likely, there’s a genetic predisposition and some type of exposure, which creates the perfect storm to trigger disease.”

There are hints that COVID-19 might be precipitating type 1 diabetes in some people. Recently, the CDC found SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes (all types) among youth, but not other acute respiratory infections. And two further studies from different parts of the world have recently identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons remain unclear.

The global CoviDiab registry has also been established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes.

The million-dollar question: Is COVID-19 itself is propagating type 1 diabetes or unmasking a predisposition to the disease sooner? The latter might be associated with a lower type 1 diabetes rate in the future, said Partha Kar, MBBS, OBE, national specialty advisor, diabetes, for National Health Service England.

“Right now, we don’t know the answer. Whichever way you look at it, it is likely there will be a rise in cases, and in countries where insulin is not freely available, healthcare systems need to have supply ready because insulin is lifesaving in type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Kar emphasized.
 

CGMs and automated insulin delivery: A ‘godsend’

A huge change has also been seen, most notably in the past 15 to 20 years, in the technological advancements that can help those with type 1 diabetes live an easier life.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated ways of delivering insulin, such as smart pens and insulin pumps, have made the daily life of a person with type 1 diabetes in the Western world considerably more comfortable.

CGMs provide a constant stream of data to an app, often wirelessly in sync with the insulin pump. However, on a global level, they are only available to a lucky few.

In England, pending National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) approval, any CGM should be available to all eligible patients with type 1 diabetes within the NHS from April 2022, Dr. Kar pointed out. In the United States, CGMs are often unaffordable and access is mostly dependent on a person’s health insurance.

Kersten Hall, PhD, a scientist and U.K.-based medical historian who recently wrote a book, “Insulin, the Crooked Timber” (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2022) uncovering the lesser-known story behind the discovery of insulin, was diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes at the age of 41. Dr. Hall had always found the finger-prick blood glucose test to be a chore but now has a CGM. 

“It’s a total game changer for me: a godsend. I can’t sing its praises enough,” he said. “All it involves is the swipe of the phone and this provides a reading which tells me if my glucose is too low, so I eat something, or too high, so I might [go for] a run.”
 

Brewing insulin at scale

As described by Dr. Hall in his book, the journey from treating Mr. Thompson in 1922 to treating the masses began when biochemist James Collip, MD, PhD, discovered a means of purifying the animal pancreas extracts used to treat the teenager.

But production at scale presented a further challenge. This was overcome in 1924 when Eli Lilly drew on a technique used in the beer brewing process – where pH guides bitterness – to purify and manufacture large amounts of insulin.

By 1936, a range of slower-acting cattle and pig-derived insulins, the first produced by Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, were developed.

However, it took 8,000 lb (approximately 3,600 kg) of pancreas glands from 23,500 animals to make 1 lb (0.5 kg) of insulin, so a more efficient process was badly needed.

Dr. Hall, who is a molecular biologist as well as an author, explains that the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce human insulin, as done by Genentech in the late 70s, was a key development in the story of modern insulin products. Genentech then provided synthetic human insulin for Eli Lilly to conduct clinical trials.

Human insulin most closely resembles porcine insulin structure and function, differing by only one amino acid, while human insulin differs from bovine insulin by three amino acid residues. This synthetic human insulin eliminated the allergies that the animal-derived products sometimes caused.

In the early 1980s, Eli Lilly produced Humulin, the first biosynthetic (made in Escherichia coli, hence the term, “bio”) human insulin.

This technology eventually “allowed for the alteration of specific amino acids in the sequence of the insulin protein to make insulin analogs [synthetic versions grown in E. coli and genetically altered for various properties] that act faster, or more slowly, than normal human insulin. By using the slow- and fast-acting insulins in combination, a patient can control their blood sugar levels with a much greater degree of finesse and precision,” Dr. Hall explained.

Today, a whole range of insulins are available, including ultra–rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, long-acting, ultra–long-acting, and even inhaled insulin, although the latter is expensive, has been associated with side effects, and is less commonly used, according to Dr. Stephens.

Oral insulin formulations are even in the early stages of development, with candidate drugs by Generex and from the Oralis project.

“With insulin therapy, we try to reproduce the normal physiology of the healthy body and pancreas,” Dr. Stephens explained.

Insulin analogs are only made by three companies (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi), and they are generally much more expensive than nonanalog human insulin. In the United Kingdom through the NHS, they cost twice as much.

In the United States today, one of the biggest barriers to proper care of type 1 diabetes is the cost of insulin, which can limit access. With the market controlled by these three large companies, the average cost of a unit of insulin in the United States, according to RAND research, was $98.17 in January 2021, compared with $7.52 in the United Kingdom and $12.00 in Canada. 

Several U.S. states have enacted legislation capping insulin copayments to at, or under, $100 a month. But the federal Build Back Better Framework Act – which would cap copayments for insulin at $35 – currently hangs in the balance.

Alongside these moves, in 2020 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin for type 1 diabetes (and insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes) in children and adults, called Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals). 

Biosimilars (essentially generic versions of branded insulins) are expected to be less expensive than branded analogs, but the indications so far are that they will only be around 20% cheaper.

“I totally fail to understand how the richest country in the world still has a debate about price caps, and we are looking at biosimilar markets to change the debate. This makes no sense to me at all,” stressed Dr. Kar. “For lifesaving drugs, they should be funded by the state.”

Insulin also remains unaffordable for many in numerous low- and middle-income countries, where most patients pay out-of-pocket for medicines. Globally, there are estimated to be around 30 million people who need insulin but cannot afford it.

How near to a cure in the coming decades?

Looking ahead to the coming years, if not the next 100, Dr. Stephens highlighted two important aspects of care.

First, the use of a CGM device in combination with an insulin pump (also known as a closed-loop system or artificial pancreas), where the CGM effectively tells the insulin pump how much insulin to automatically dispense, should revolutionize care.

A number of such closed-loop systems have recently been approved in both the United States, including systems from Medtronic and Omnipod, and Europe.

“I wear one of these and it’s been a life changer for me, but it doesn’t suit everyone because the technology can be cumbersome, but with time, hopefully things will become smaller and more accurate in insulin delivery,” Dr. Stephens added.

The second advance of interest is the development and transplantation of cells that produce insulin.

Dr. Stephens explained that someone living with type 1 diabetes has a lot to think about, not least, doing the math related to insulin requirement. “If we just had cells from a pancreas that could be transplanted and would do that for us, then it would be a total game changer.”

To date, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has successfully treated one patient – who had lived with type 1 diabetes for about 40 years and had recurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia – with an infusion of stem cell–derived differentiated islet cells into his liver. The procedure resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes, with his insulin dose reduced from 34 to 3 units, and his hemoglobin A1c falling from 8.6% to 7.2%.

And although the patient, Brian Shelton, still needs to take immunosuppressive agents to prevent rejection of the stem cell–derived islets, “it’s a whole new life,” he recently told the New York Times.  

Another company called ViaCyte is also working on a similar approach.

Whether this is a cure for type 1 diabetes is still debatable, said Anne Peters, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Is it true? In a word, no. But we are part of the way there, which is much closer than we were 6 months ago.”

There are also ongoing clinical trials of therapeutic interventions to prevent or delay the trajectory from presymptomatic to clinical type 1 diabetes. The most advanced is the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), which was rejected by the FDA in July 2021, but has since been refiled. The company expects to hear from the agency by the end of March 2022 as to whether the resubmission has been accepted.
 

Diabetes specialist nurses/educators keep it human

Dr. Hall said he concurs with the late eminent U.K. diabetes specialist Robert Tattersall’s observation on what he considers one of the most important advances in the management and treatment of type 1 diabetes: the human touch.

Referring to Dr. Tattersall’s book, “Diabetes: A Biography,” Dr. Hall quoted: “If asked what innovation had made the most difference to their lives in the 1980s, patients with type 1 diabetes in England would unhesitatingly have chosen not human insulin, but the spread of diabetes specialist nurses ... these people (mainly women) did more in the last two decades of the 20th century to improve the standard of diabetes care than any other innovation or drug.”

In the United States, diabetes specialist nurses were called diabetes educators until recently, when the name changed to certified diabetes care and education specialist.

“Above all, they have humanized the service and given the patient a say in the otherwise unequal relationship with all-powerful doctors,” concluded Dr. Hall, again quoting Dr. Tattersall.

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

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the first use of insulin in humans. Part 1 of this series examined the rivalry behind the discovery and use of insulin.

One hundred years ago, teenager Leonard Thompson was the first patient with type 1 diabetes to be successfully treated with insulin, granting him a reprieve from what was a certain death sentence at the time.

Since then, research has gathered pace. In the century since insulin’s discovery and first use, recombinant DNA technology has allowed for the engineering of the insulin molecule, providing numerous short- and long-acting analog versions. At the same time, technological leaps in automated insulin delivery and monitoring of blood glucose ensure more time with glucose in range and fewer life-threatening complications for those with type 1 diabetes fortunate enough to have access to the technology. 

In spite of these advancements, there is still scope for further evolution of disease management, with the holy grail being the transplant of stem cell–derived islet cells capable of making insulin, ideally encased in some kind of protective device so that immunosuppression is not required.

Indeed, it is not unreasonable to “hope that type 1 diabetes will be a curable disease in the next 100 years,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist who has type 1 diabetes and practices in Portland, Ore.
 

Type 1 diabetes: The past 100 years

The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes has shifted considerably since 1922. A century ago, given that average life expectancy in the United States was around 54 years, it was pretty much the only type of diabetes that doctors encountered. “There was some type 2 diabetes about in heavier people, but the focus was on type 1 diabetes,” noted Dr. Stephens.

Originally called juvenile diabetes because it was thought to only occur in children, “now 50% of people are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes ... over [the age of] 20,” explained Dr. Stephens.

In the United States, around 1.4 million adults 20 years and older, and 187,000 children younger than 20, have the disease, according to data from the National Diabetes Statistics Report 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This total represents an increase of nearly 30% from 2017.

Over the years, theories as to the cause, or trigger, for type 1 diabetes “have included cow’s milk and [viral] infections,” said Dr. Stephens. “Most likely, there’s a genetic predisposition and some type of exposure, which creates the perfect storm to trigger disease.”

There are hints that COVID-19 might be precipitating type 1 diabetes in some people. Recently, the CDC found SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes (all types) among youth, but not other acute respiratory infections. And two further studies from different parts of the world have recently identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons remain unclear.

The global CoviDiab registry has also been established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes.

The million-dollar question: Is COVID-19 itself is propagating type 1 diabetes or unmasking a predisposition to the disease sooner? The latter might be associated with a lower type 1 diabetes rate in the future, said Partha Kar, MBBS, OBE, national specialty advisor, diabetes, for National Health Service England.

“Right now, we don’t know the answer. Whichever way you look at it, it is likely there will be a rise in cases, and in countries where insulin is not freely available, healthcare systems need to have supply ready because insulin is lifesaving in type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Kar emphasized.
 

CGMs and automated insulin delivery: A ‘godsend’

A huge change has also been seen, most notably in the past 15 to 20 years, in the technological advancements that can help those with type 1 diabetes live an easier life.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated ways of delivering insulin, such as smart pens and insulin pumps, have made the daily life of a person with type 1 diabetes in the Western world considerably more comfortable.

CGMs provide a constant stream of data to an app, often wirelessly in sync with the insulin pump. However, on a global level, they are only available to a lucky few.

In England, pending National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) approval, any CGM should be available to all eligible patients with type 1 diabetes within the NHS from April 2022, Dr. Kar pointed out. In the United States, CGMs are often unaffordable and access is mostly dependent on a person’s health insurance.

Kersten Hall, PhD, a scientist and U.K.-based medical historian who recently wrote a book, “Insulin, the Crooked Timber” (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2022) uncovering the lesser-known story behind the discovery of insulin, was diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes at the age of 41. Dr. Hall had always found the finger-prick blood glucose test to be a chore but now has a CGM. 

“It’s a total game changer for me: a godsend. I can’t sing its praises enough,” he said. “All it involves is the swipe of the phone and this provides a reading which tells me if my glucose is too low, so I eat something, or too high, so I might [go for] a run.”
 

Brewing insulin at scale

As described by Dr. Hall in his book, the journey from treating Mr. Thompson in 1922 to treating the masses began when biochemist James Collip, MD, PhD, discovered a means of purifying the animal pancreas extracts used to treat the teenager.

But production at scale presented a further challenge. This was overcome in 1924 when Eli Lilly drew on a technique used in the beer brewing process – where pH guides bitterness – to purify and manufacture large amounts of insulin.

By 1936, a range of slower-acting cattle and pig-derived insulins, the first produced by Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, were developed.

However, it took 8,000 lb (approximately 3,600 kg) of pancreas glands from 23,500 animals to make 1 lb (0.5 kg) of insulin, so a more efficient process was badly needed.

Dr. Hall, who is a molecular biologist as well as an author, explains that the use of recombinant DNA technology to produce human insulin, as done by Genentech in the late 70s, was a key development in the story of modern insulin products. Genentech then provided synthetic human insulin for Eli Lilly to conduct clinical trials.

Human insulin most closely resembles porcine insulin structure and function, differing by only one amino acid, while human insulin differs from bovine insulin by three amino acid residues. This synthetic human insulin eliminated the allergies that the animal-derived products sometimes caused.

In the early 1980s, Eli Lilly produced Humulin, the first biosynthetic (made in Escherichia coli, hence the term, “bio”) human insulin.

This technology eventually “allowed for the alteration of specific amino acids in the sequence of the insulin protein to make insulin analogs [synthetic versions grown in E. coli and genetically altered for various properties] that act faster, or more slowly, than normal human insulin. By using the slow- and fast-acting insulins in combination, a patient can control their blood sugar levels with a much greater degree of finesse and precision,” Dr. Hall explained.

Today, a whole range of insulins are available, including ultra–rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, long-acting, ultra–long-acting, and even inhaled insulin, although the latter is expensive, has been associated with side effects, and is less commonly used, according to Dr. Stephens.

Oral insulin formulations are even in the early stages of development, with candidate drugs by Generex and from the Oralis project.

“With insulin therapy, we try to reproduce the normal physiology of the healthy body and pancreas,” Dr. Stephens explained.

Insulin analogs are only made by three companies (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi), and they are generally much more expensive than nonanalog human insulin. In the United Kingdom through the NHS, they cost twice as much.

In the United States today, one of the biggest barriers to proper care of type 1 diabetes is the cost of insulin, which can limit access. With the market controlled by these three large companies, the average cost of a unit of insulin in the United States, according to RAND research, was $98.17 in January 2021, compared with $7.52 in the United Kingdom and $12.00 in Canada. 

Several U.S. states have enacted legislation capping insulin copayments to at, or under, $100 a month. But the federal Build Back Better Framework Act – which would cap copayments for insulin at $35 – currently hangs in the balance.

Alongside these moves, in 2020 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin for type 1 diabetes (and insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes) in children and adults, called Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals). 

Biosimilars (essentially generic versions of branded insulins) are expected to be less expensive than branded analogs, but the indications so far are that they will only be around 20% cheaper.

“I totally fail to understand how the richest country in the world still has a debate about price caps, and we are looking at biosimilar markets to change the debate. This makes no sense to me at all,” stressed Dr. Kar. “For lifesaving drugs, they should be funded by the state.”

Insulin also remains unaffordable for many in numerous low- and middle-income countries, where most patients pay out-of-pocket for medicines. Globally, there are estimated to be around 30 million people who need insulin but cannot afford it.

How near to a cure in the coming decades?

Looking ahead to the coming years, if not the next 100, Dr. Stephens highlighted two important aspects of care.

First, the use of a CGM device in combination with an insulin pump (also known as a closed-loop system or artificial pancreas), where the CGM effectively tells the insulin pump how much insulin to automatically dispense, should revolutionize care.

A number of such closed-loop systems have recently been approved in both the United States, including systems from Medtronic and Omnipod, and Europe.

“I wear one of these and it’s been a life changer for me, but it doesn’t suit everyone because the technology can be cumbersome, but with time, hopefully things will become smaller and more accurate in insulin delivery,” Dr. Stephens added.

The second advance of interest is the development and transplantation of cells that produce insulin.

Dr. Stephens explained that someone living with type 1 diabetes has a lot to think about, not least, doing the math related to insulin requirement. “If we just had cells from a pancreas that could be transplanted and would do that for us, then it would be a total game changer.”

To date, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has successfully treated one patient – who had lived with type 1 diabetes for about 40 years and had recurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia – with an infusion of stem cell–derived differentiated islet cells into his liver. The procedure resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes, with his insulin dose reduced from 34 to 3 units, and his hemoglobin A1c falling from 8.6% to 7.2%.

And although the patient, Brian Shelton, still needs to take immunosuppressive agents to prevent rejection of the stem cell–derived islets, “it’s a whole new life,” he recently told the New York Times.  

Another company called ViaCyte is also working on a similar approach.

Whether this is a cure for type 1 diabetes is still debatable, said Anne Peters, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Is it true? In a word, no. But we are part of the way there, which is much closer than we were 6 months ago.”

There are also ongoing clinical trials of therapeutic interventions to prevent or delay the trajectory from presymptomatic to clinical type 1 diabetes. The most advanced is the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), which was rejected by the FDA in July 2021, but has since been refiled. The company expects to hear from the agency by the end of March 2022 as to whether the resubmission has been accepted.
 

Diabetes specialist nurses/educators keep it human

Dr. Hall said he concurs with the late eminent U.K. diabetes specialist Robert Tattersall’s observation on what he considers one of the most important advances in the management and treatment of type 1 diabetes: the human touch.

Referring to Dr. Tattersall’s book, “Diabetes: A Biography,” Dr. Hall quoted: “If asked what innovation had made the most difference to their lives in the 1980s, patients with type 1 diabetes in England would unhesitatingly have chosen not human insulin, but the spread of diabetes specialist nurses ... these people (mainly women) did more in the last two decades of the 20th century to improve the standard of diabetes care than any other innovation or drug.”

In the United States, diabetes specialist nurses were called diabetes educators until recently, when the name changed to certified diabetes care and education specialist.

“Above all, they have humanized the service and given the patient a say in the otherwise unequal relationship with all-powerful doctors,” concluded Dr. Hall, again quoting Dr. Tattersall.

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

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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