Federal Practitioner

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.

The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.

Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.

“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”

If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.

Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so her prosecution is a rare example of a health care worker facing years in prison for a medical error. Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.

The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.

Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.

Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.

Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.

Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.

“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”

As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.

The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.

Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.

Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.

The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.

While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.

Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.

“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”

Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.

Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.

Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.

“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”

Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.

Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”

In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.

“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.

The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.

Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.

“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”

If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.

Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so her prosecution is a rare example of a health care worker facing years in prison for a medical error. Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.

The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.

Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.

Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.

Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.

Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.

“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”

As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.

The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.

Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.

Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.

The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.

While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.

Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.

“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”

Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.

Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.

Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.

“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”

Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.

Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”

In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.

“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient, and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.

The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Ms. Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient’s breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.

Ms. Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became “complacent” in her job and “distracted” by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.

“I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me,” Ms. Vaught said, starting to cry. “There won’t ever be a day that goes by that I don’t think about what I did.”

If Ms. Vaught’s story followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Board of Nursing revoked her RN license and almost certainly ended her nursing career. But Ms. Vaught’s case is different: This week she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Dec. 27, 2017.

Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Ms. Vaught intended to hurt Ms. Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so her prosecution is a rare example of a health care worker facing years in prison for a medical error. Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Ms. Vaught’s loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.

The Nashville district attorney’s office declined to discuss Ms. Vaught’s trial. Ms. Vaught’s lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Ms. Vaught’s trial or its procedures.

Ms. Vaught’s trial will be followed by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent even as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized, and likely more prone to error.

Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nursing group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Ms. Vaught’s case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.

Ms. Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols, and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.

Ms. Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Ms. Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.

“In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,” Ms. Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it’s because they don’t realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda.”

As the trial begins, the Nashville DA’s prosecutors will argue that Ms. Vaught’s error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.

The case hinges on the nurse’s use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case, Ms. Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing “VE” into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Ms. Vaught triggered an “override” that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for “VE” again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.

Ms. Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.

Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Ms. Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to “look directly” at a bottle cap that read “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” the DA’s documents state.

The DA’s office points to this override as central to Ms. Vaught’s reckless homicide charge. Ms. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.

While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Ms. Vaught said at the time of Ms. Murphey’s death that Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital’s electronic health records system.

Ms. Murphey’s care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Ms. Vaught said.

“Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day,” Ms. Vaught said. “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”

Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt too, according to experts following Ms. Vaught’s case.

Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.

Mr. Cohen and Ms. Brown stressed that even with an override it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.

“This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to,” Ms. Brown said. “It’s probably the most dangerous medication out there.”

Mr. Cohen said that in response to Ms. Vaught’s case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices’ software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Ms. Vaught’s error, Mr. Cohen’s organization documented a “strikingly similar” incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient’s death or criminal prosecution, Mr. Cohen said.

Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing, wrote in 2019 that Ms. Vaught’s case was “every nurse’s nightmare.”

In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.

“We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a combination nivolumab/relatlimab-rmbw immune checkpoint inhibitor (Opdualag) for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in adults and children 12 years or older, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Approval was based on the company’s RELATIVITY-047 trial, which found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.1 months among 355 patients randomly assigned to the combination therapy compared with 4.6 months among 359 patients who received nivolumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .0055).

In the combination therapy group, 18.9% of patients reported a grade 3/4 drug-related adverse event, compared with 9.7% in the nivolumab group; 14.6% of patients in the combination group had drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation versus 6.7% of those receiving monotherapy, the company noted in a press release.

Relatlimab is the company’s third immune checkpoint inhibitor to reach the U.S. market, joining the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 blocker ipilimumab. Relatlimab targets LAG-3, a cell-surface receptor found on activated CD4+ T cells.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is currently the standard of care for previously untreated metastatic or inoperable melanoma. Both combinations produce similar PFS, but the incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events is higher with ipilimumab, according to a Jan. 6, 2022, editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea were the most common adverse reactions with combination nivolumab/relatlimab, occurring in 20% or more of RELATIVITY-047 trial participants.

Adrenal insufficiency, anemia, colitis, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction were the most frequent serious adverse reactions, but each occurred in less than 2% of patients. There were three fatal adverse events in the trial caused by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, acute lung edema, and pneumonitis.

The approved dosage is 480 mg nivolumab and 160 mg relatlimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks.

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