Federal Practitioner

Key clinical point: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) was effective for risk-stratifying men for prostate cancer in a large, multiethnic data set.

Major finding: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) indicated hazard ratios for prostate cancer, aggressive cancer, and prostate cancer-specific death of 5.32, 5.88, and 5.68, respectively, when researchers compared the 80^th and 20^th PHS2 percentiles.

Study details: The data come from 80,491 men enrolled in the OncoArray genetic project; researchers tested the polygenic hazard score (PHS2, adapted for OncoArray) for association with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the United States Department of Defense, the University of California, the Research Council of Norway, K.G. Jebsen Stiftelsen, and South East Norway Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Huynh-Le had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Huynh-Le M-P et al. Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 23. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21287-0.

Key clinical point: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) was effective for risk-stratifying men for prostate cancer in a large, multiethnic data set.

Major finding: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) indicated hazard ratios for prostate cancer, aggressive cancer, and prostate cancer-specific death of 5.32, 5.88, and 5.68, respectively, when researchers compared the 80^th and 20^th PHS2 percentiles.

Study details: The data come from 80,491 men enrolled in the OncoArray genetic project; researchers tested the polygenic hazard score (PHS2, adapted for OncoArray) for association with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the United States Department of Defense, the University of California, the Research Council of Norway, K.G. Jebsen Stiftelsen, and South East Norway Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Huynh-Le had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Huynh-Le M-P et al. Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 23. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21287-0.

Key clinical point: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) was effective for risk-stratifying men for prostate cancer in a large, multiethnic data set.

Major finding: The Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS2) indicated hazard ratios for prostate cancer, aggressive cancer, and prostate cancer-specific death of 5.32, 5.88, and 5.68, respectively, when researchers compared the 80^th and 20^th PHS2 percentiles.

Study details: The data come from 80,491 men enrolled in the OncoArray genetic project; researchers tested the polygenic hazard score (PHS2, adapted for OncoArray) for association with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the United States Department of Defense, the University of California, the Research Council of Norway, K.G. Jebsen Stiftelsen, and South East Norway Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Huynh-Le had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Huynh-Le M-P et al. Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 23. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21287-0.

Key clinical point: Increased use of PSA testing and diagnostic activity increased the number of men diagnosed with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Major finding: The number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer increased by 48% in the high diagnostic activity model compared to the low diagnostic activity model (423 cases per 100,000 me per year vs. 286 cases per 100,000 men per year). 

Study details: The data come from a cohort study of 188,884 men aged 64-77 years diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1996 and 2016 in Sweden. The researchers used a simulation model to compare scenarios of high and low diagnostic activity for prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Bergengren O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9444.

Key clinical point: Increased use of PSA testing and diagnostic activity increased the number of men diagnosed with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Major finding: The number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer increased by 48% in the high diagnostic activity model compared to the low diagnostic activity model (423 cases per 100,000 me per year vs. 286 cases per 100,000 men per year). 

Study details: The data come from a cohort study of 188,884 men aged 64-77 years diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1996 and 2016 in Sweden. The researchers used a simulation model to compare scenarios of high and low diagnostic activity for prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Bergengren O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9444.

Key clinical point: Increased use of PSA testing and diagnostic activity increased the number of men diagnosed with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Major finding: The number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer increased by 48% in the high diagnostic activity model compared to the low diagnostic activity model (423 cases per 100,000 me per year vs. 286 cases per 100,000 men per year). 

Study details: The data come from a cohort study of 188,884 men aged 64-77 years diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1996 and 2016 in Sweden. The researchers used a simulation model to compare scenarios of high and low diagnostic activity for prostate cancer.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Bergengren O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9444.

Key clinical point: Treatment with lutetium prostate-specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) therapy at 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq yielded similar PSA response rates and overall survival for patients with progressive metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

Major finding: The primary endpoint of PSA response of at least a 50% reduction from baseline after 2 treatment cycles was met in 28% of the whole cohort, and 46% and 19%, respectively, for treatment regimens of 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, phase II trial of 71 men with progressive, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. The patients were randomized to Lu-PSMA therapy at doses of either 6.0 vs 7.4 GBq.

Disclosures: The original study was supported by Endocyte. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Calais J. et al. J Nucl Med. 2021 May 20. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.121.261982.

Key clinical point: Treatment with lutetium prostate-specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) therapy at 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq yielded similar PSA response rates and overall survival for patients with progressive metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

Major finding: The primary endpoint of PSA response of at least a 50% reduction from baseline after 2 treatment cycles was met in 28% of the whole cohort, and 46% and 19%, respectively, for treatment regimens of 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, phase II trial of 71 men with progressive, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. The patients were randomized to Lu-PSMA therapy at doses of either 6.0 vs 7.4 GBq.

Disclosures: The original study was supported by Endocyte. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Calais J. et al. J Nucl Med. 2021 May 20. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.121.261982.

Key clinical point: Treatment with lutetium prostate-specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) therapy at 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq yielded similar PSA response rates and overall survival for patients with progressive metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

Major finding: The primary endpoint of PSA response of at least a 50% reduction from baseline after 2 treatment cycles was met in 28% of the whole cohort, and 46% and 19%, respectively, for treatment regimens of 6.0 GBq and 7.4 GBq.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, phase II trial of 71 men with progressive, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. The patients were randomized to Lu-PSMA therapy at doses of either 6.0 vs 7.4 GBq.

Disclosures: The original study was supported by Endocyte. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.  

Source: Calais J. et al. J Nucl Med. 2021 May 20. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.121.261982.

Key clinical point: A serum metabolic panel was more effective than prostate-specific antigen at differentiating prostate cancer patients from patients with negative prostate biopsy and healthy controls.

Major finding: The metabolic panel showed a higher diagnostic performance than prostate-specific antigen in distinguishing PCa from control patients, with an area under the curve of 0.823 for the metabolic panel vs. 0.712 for PSA (P <0.001).

Study details: The data come from a logistic regression analysis of 134 individuals, 39 prostate cancer patients, 45 controls with a negative prostate biopsy, and 50 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Science and Technology Support Project in the field of biomedicine of Shanghai Science and Technology Action Plan, Clinical Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning, Precision Medicine Program of Second Military Medical University, Youth Startup Program of Second Military Medical University, and Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Xu H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.666320.

Key clinical point: A serum metabolic panel was more effective than prostate-specific antigen at differentiating prostate cancer patients from patients with negative prostate biopsy and healthy controls.

Major finding: The metabolic panel showed a higher diagnostic performance than prostate-specific antigen in distinguishing PCa from control patients, with an area under the curve of 0.823 for the metabolic panel vs. 0.712 for PSA (P <0.001).

Study details: The data come from a logistic regression analysis of 134 individuals, 39 prostate cancer patients, 45 controls with a negative prostate biopsy, and 50 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Science and Technology Support Project in the field of biomedicine of Shanghai Science and Technology Action Plan, Clinical Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning, Precision Medicine Program of Second Military Medical University, Youth Startup Program of Second Military Medical University, and Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Xu H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.666320.

Key clinical point: A serum metabolic panel was more effective than prostate-specific antigen at differentiating prostate cancer patients from patients with negative prostate biopsy and healthy controls.

Major finding: The metabolic panel showed a higher diagnostic performance than prostate-specific antigen in distinguishing PCa from control patients, with an area under the curve of 0.823 for the metabolic panel vs. 0.712 for PSA (P <0.001).

Study details: The data come from a logistic regression analysis of 134 individuals, 39 prostate cancer patients, 45 controls with a negative prostate biopsy, and 50 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Science and Technology Support Project in the field of biomedicine of Shanghai Science and Technology Action Plan, Clinical Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning, Precision Medicine Program of Second Military Medical University, Youth Startup Program of Second Military Medical University, and Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Xu H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.666320.

Key clinical point: Overall survival among men with castration sensitive prostate cancer was similar whether they were treated with docetaxel or abiraterone, but progression-free survival favored abiraterone patients.

Major finding: Progression-free survival at 12 months was greater among men who received ABI compared to those who received DOC (79.7% vs. 67.1%). Overall survival rates at 12 months were similar between the ABI and DOC groups (92.7% and 98.7%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 121 men with castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who were treated at a single center between December 2014 and March 2021; 79 received docetaxel and 42 received abiraterone in addition to androgen deprivation therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Joseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Briones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Briones J et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.658331.

Key clinical point: Overall survival among men with castration sensitive prostate cancer was similar whether they were treated with docetaxel or abiraterone, but progression-free survival favored abiraterone patients.

Major finding: Progression-free survival at 12 months was greater among men who received ABI compared to those who received DOC (79.7% vs. 67.1%). Overall survival rates at 12 months were similar between the ABI and DOC groups (92.7% and 98.7%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 121 men with castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who were treated at a single center between December 2014 and March 2021; 79 received docetaxel and 42 received abiraterone in addition to androgen deprivation therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Joseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Briones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Briones J et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.658331.

Key clinical point: Overall survival among men with castration sensitive prostate cancer was similar whether they were treated with docetaxel or abiraterone, but progression-free survival favored abiraterone patients.

Major finding: Progression-free survival at 12 months was greater among men who received ABI compared to those who received DOC (79.7% vs. 67.1%). Overall survival rates at 12 months were similar between the ABI and DOC groups (92.7% and 98.7%, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective analysis of 121 men with castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) who were treated at a single center between December 2014 and March 2021; 79 received docetaxel and 42 received abiraterone in addition to androgen deprivation therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Joseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Research Fund. Lead author Dr. Briones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Briones J et al. Front Oncol. 2021 May 7. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.658331.

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

Gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic fatigue may persist months after the COVID-19 virus infection resolves, results of a recent cohort-controlled study suggest.

About 5 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, relative risks of loose stools, somatization, and chronic fatigue were increased by approximately two- to three fold, compared to individuals who had not been infected, according to study results presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

These longer-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be more severe in patients who had experienced diarrhea during the acute infection, according to investigator Daniele Noviello, MD, a second-year resident in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Milan.

This is the first cohort-controlled study that specifically investigates gastrointestinal symptoms and somatoform disorders, Dr. Noviello said in a virtual presentation of the results.

“Based on our data, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal, and somatoform symptoms may have a common postinfectious origin, and they should be investigated in the follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 patients,” he said.
 

Links between SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal symptoms

Gastrointestinal symptoms are known to be relatively common during acute infection. According to Dr. Noviello, the most frequent gastrointestinal symptom associated with SARS-CoV-2 is diarrhea, occurring in 4% to nearly 40% of patients in case series to date.

However, data on the longer-term gastrointestinal impacts of SARS-CoV-2 remain scarce.

In one noncontrolled cohort study in China, loss of appetite, nausea, acid reflux, and diarrhea were seen in 15%-24% of patients 3 months after the infection, Dr. Noviello said. In another cohort study in China, diarrhea and vomiting were reported in 5% of patients 6 months after infection.

In any case, it is known that viral, bacterial, and protozoal infections of the gastrointestinal tract are a risk factor for development of functional disorders including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia, and chronic fatigue, according to Dr. Noviello.

Accordingly, the results of the present study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 also “may affect the brain-gut axis in the long term,” Dr. Noviello and coauthors wrote in an abstract of the study.

It is plausible that SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a trigger for longer-term gastrointestinal symptoms, especially given the previous evidence linking infections and IBS symptoms, or postinfectious IBS, said Juan Pablo Stefanolo, MD, a physician with the neurogastroenterology and motility section, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Buenos Aires University.

“If it is demonstrated [that SARS-CoV-2 infection is a trigger], the microbiota-gut-brain axis concept in IBS pathophysiology is reinforced,” Dr. Stefanolo said in an interview.

In the meantime, practitioners may want to take into account COVID-19 infection history in the evaluation of a patient with IBS-like symptoms and, in case of a known positive COVID-19 result in an IBS patient, be aware of the possibility of symptom exacerbation, Dr. Stefanolo said.
 

Pandemic in Italy: Unique study opportunity

The severe outbreak in the Milan region early in the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “unique opportunity” to assess the long-term impact of infection on gastrointestinal and extraintestinal somatoform symptoms, said Dr. Noviello.

The investigators sent an online questionnaire to patients who had a molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal swab between February and April of 2020. To form a control group, they also sent questionnaires to hospital employees and health care providers who had tested negative over that same time period.

In all, 378 questionnaires were completed by 177 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and 201 controls. The SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were somewhat older (about 44 years vs. 40 years for controls), were less often female (40% vs. 61%), had a lower education level, and smoked less than did controls, according to the investigators.

A mean of 4.8 months had elapsed between the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and when the questionnaires were compiled, said Dr. Noviello.

In the acute phase, diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom among virus-positive individuals, occurring in about 50% compared to 20% of controls (P < .001), data show. Other symptoms reported by 40% of SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals included fever, dyspnea, loss of smell or taste, weight loss, myalgia, arthralgia, and asthenia in the acute phase controls in the acute phase, Dr. Noviello said.
 

Persistent gastrointestinal symptoms after SARS-CoV-2

Persistent symptoms included loose stools, as measured by the Bristol Stool scale, occurring in 17.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals, but only 9.3% of the SARS-CoV-2–negative controls, according to Dr. Noviello, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.54).

Chronic fatigue symptoms, as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms questionnaire, were reported by about 30% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and about 15% of controls, for an adjusted risk ratio of 2.24 (95% CI, 1.48-3.37), according to Dr. Noviello’s presentation.

The mean t-score on the Symptom Checklist–12 for somatoform disorders was higher for the virus-positive patients compared to controls, according to Dr. Noviello. The scores were 54.6 and 50.5, respectively, with an adjusted score difference of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2).

The longer-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection might be more severe in individuals who experienced diarrhea during acute infection, according to Dr. Noviello. In a post hoc analysis, reports of irritable bowel syndrome and loose stools were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals who had diarrhea in the acute phase compared to those who did not experience diarrhea, he said.

Somatoform disorder scores were significantly higher, and reports of headache, back pain, and chronic fatigue were significantly more common, in individuals who had diarrhea at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, he added.

Dr. Noviello and coauthors reported no competing interests related to the study. Dr. Stefanolo had no disclosures to report.
 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough therapy designation for Boehringer Ingelheim’s experimental agent for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia (CIAS).

The drug, known as BI 425809, is a novel glycine transporter-1 inhibitor.

The company announced it will start the CONNEX phase 3 clinical trial program to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for improving cognition for adults with schizophrenia.

The breakthrough therapy designation and the initiation of phase 3 testing are based on results from a phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In the phase 2 trial, oral BI 425809, taken once daily, improved cognition after 12 weeks for patients with schizophrenia; doses of 10 mg and 25 mg showed the largest separation from placebo.

Impairment of cognitive function is a major burden for people with schizophrenia, and no pharmacologic treatments are currently approved for CIAS.

“Cognition is a fundamental aspect of everyday life, including problem solving, memory, and attention, which is why finding solutions for cognitive impairment is a key area of Boehringer Ingelheim mental health research,” Vikas Mohan Sharma, MS, with Boehringer Ingelheim, said in a news release.

“This breakthrough therapy designation further highlights the urgent need for novel treatments for people living with schizophrenia. By combining traditional treatment approaches with new and innovative technologies, we are developing targeted therapies that will help to ease the burden of mental health conditions and enable people living with these conditions to create more meaningful connections to their lives, loved ones, and society,” said Mr. Sharma.

The CONNEX clinical trial program is composed of three clinical trials – CONNEX-1, CONNEX-2, and CONNEX-3. All are phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group trials that will examine the efficacy and safety of BI 425809 taken once daily over a 26-week period for patients with schizophrenia.

The primary outcome measure is change from baseline in overall composite T-score of the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia consensus cognitive battery.

The CONNEX trial program will use VeraSci’s Pathway electronic clinical outcome assessment platform, including VeraSci’s Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool (VRFCAT), which simulates key instrumental activities of daily living in a realistic interactive virtual environment, VeraSci explains in a news release announcing the partnership with Boehringer Ingelheim.

The VRFCAT is sensitive to functional capacity deficits and has been accepted into the FDA’s Clinical Outcome Assessment Qualification Program.

The CONNEX trials will also utilize speech biomarker technology from Aural Analytics, which will provide a “richer picture of trial participants’ cognition alongside more conventional clinical outcome measures,” Boehringer Ingelheim says.

“Several of the symptoms of schizophrenia are generated by cognitive and emotional processes that can be identified through disruptions in the outward flow of speech. Using innovative speech analytics may help to objectively assess the downstream consequences of these disruptions,” said Daniel Jones, Aural Analytics co-founder and CEO.

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

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use can safely be reduced by deprescribing efforts coupled with patient and clinician education, according to a retrospective study involving more than 4 million veterans.

After 1 year, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in PPI use without worsening of acid-related diseases, reported lead author Jacob E. Kurlander, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System’s Center for Clinical Management Research.

“There’s increasing interest in interventions to reduce PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander said during his virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). “Many of the interventions have come in the form of patient and provider education, like the Choosing Wisely campaign put out by the American Board of Internal Medicine. However, in rigorous studies, few interventions have actually proven effective, and many of these studies lack data on clinical outcomes, so it’s difficult to ascertain the real clinical benefits, or even harms.”

In an effort to address this gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective, difference-in-difference study spanning 10 years, from 2009 to 2019. The 1-year intervention, implemented in August 2013, included refill restrictions for PPIs without documented indication for long-term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not filled within 6 months, a quick-order option for H2-receptor antagonists, reports to identify high-dose PPI prescribing, and patient and clinician education.

The intervention group consisted of 192,607-250,349 veterans in Veteran Integrated Service Network 17, whereas the control group consisted of 3,775,978-4,360,908 veterans in other service networks (ranges in population size are due to variations across 6-month intervals of analysis). For each 6-month interval, patients were included if they had at least two primary care visits within the past 2 years, and excluded if they received primary care at three other sites that joined the intervention site after initial implementation.

The investigators analyzed three main outcomes: Proportion of veterans dispensed a PPI prescription from the VA at any dose; incidence proportion of hospitalization for upper GI diseases, including upper GI bleeding other than from esophageal varices or angiodysplasia, as well as nonbleeding acid peptic disease; and rates of primary care visits, gastroenterology visits, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs).

The analysis was divided into a preimplementation period, lasting approximately 5 years, and a postimplementation period with a similar duration. In the postimplementation period, the intervention group had a 5.9% relative reduction in PPI prescriptions, compared with the control group (P < .001). During the same period, the intervention site did not have a significant increase in the rate of patients hospitalized for upper GI diseases, primary care visits, GI clinic visits, or EGDs.

In a subgroup analysis of patients coprescribed PPIs during time at high-risk for upper GI bleeding (that is, when they possessed at least two high-risk medications, such as warfarin), there was a 4.6% relative reduction in time with PPI gastroprotection among the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003). In a second sensitivity analysis, hospitalization for upper GI diseases in high-risk patients at least 65 years of age was not significantly different between groups.

“[This] multicomponent PPI deprescribing program led to sustained reductions in PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander concluded. “However, this blunt intervention also reduced appropriate use of PPIs for gastroprotection, raising some concerns about clinical quality of care, but this did not appear to cause any measurable clinical harm in terms of hospitalizations for upper GI diseases.”
 

Debate around ‘unnecessary PPI use’

According to Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, the study “makes an attempt to do what others have tried in different ways, which is to develop a mechanism to help reduce or discontinue proton pump inhibitors when people believe they’re not indicated.”

Yet this latter element – appropriate indication – drives an ongoing debate.

“This is a very controversial area,” Dr. Katz said in an interview. “The concept of using the lowest effective dose of medication needed for a symptom or a disease is not new, but the push to reducing or eliminating ‘unnecessary PPI use’ is one that I believe should be carefully discussed, and that we have a clear understanding of what constitutes unnecessary use. And quite honestly, I’m willing to state that I don’t believe that’s been well defined.”

Dr. Katz, who recently coauthored an article about PPIs, suggested that more prospective research is needed to identify which patients need PPIs and which don’t.

“What we really need are more studies that look at who really needs [PPIs] long term,” Dr. Katz said, “as opposed to doing it ad hoc.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharma.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use can safely be reduced by deprescribing efforts coupled with patient and clinician education, according to a retrospective study involving more than 4 million veterans.

After 1 year, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in PPI use without worsening of acid-related diseases, reported lead author Jacob E. Kurlander, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System’s Center for Clinical Management Research.

“There’s increasing interest in interventions to reduce PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander said during his virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). “Many of the interventions have come in the form of patient and provider education, like the Choosing Wisely campaign put out by the American Board of Internal Medicine. However, in rigorous studies, few interventions have actually proven effective, and many of these studies lack data on clinical outcomes, so it’s difficult to ascertain the real clinical benefits, or even harms.”

In an effort to address this gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective, difference-in-difference study spanning 10 years, from 2009 to 2019. The 1-year intervention, implemented in August 2013, included refill restrictions for PPIs without documented indication for long-term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not filled within 6 months, a quick-order option for H2-receptor antagonists, reports to identify high-dose PPI prescribing, and patient and clinician education.

The intervention group consisted of 192,607-250,349 veterans in Veteran Integrated Service Network 17, whereas the control group consisted of 3,775,978-4,360,908 veterans in other service networks (ranges in population size are due to variations across 6-month intervals of analysis). For each 6-month interval, patients were included if they had at least two primary care visits within the past 2 years, and excluded if they received primary care at three other sites that joined the intervention site after initial implementation.

The investigators analyzed three main outcomes: Proportion of veterans dispensed a PPI prescription from the VA at any dose; incidence proportion of hospitalization for upper GI diseases, including upper GI bleeding other than from esophageal varices or angiodysplasia, as well as nonbleeding acid peptic disease; and rates of primary care visits, gastroenterology visits, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs).

The analysis was divided into a preimplementation period, lasting approximately 5 years, and a postimplementation period with a similar duration. In the postimplementation period, the intervention group had a 5.9% relative reduction in PPI prescriptions, compared with the control group (P < .001). During the same period, the intervention site did not have a significant increase in the rate of patients hospitalized for upper GI diseases, primary care visits, GI clinic visits, or EGDs.

In a subgroup analysis of patients coprescribed PPIs during time at high-risk for upper GI bleeding (that is, when they possessed at least two high-risk medications, such as warfarin), there was a 4.6% relative reduction in time with PPI gastroprotection among the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003). In a second sensitivity analysis, hospitalization for upper GI diseases in high-risk patients at least 65 years of age was not significantly different between groups.

“[This] multicomponent PPI deprescribing program led to sustained reductions in PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander concluded. “However, this blunt intervention also reduced appropriate use of PPIs for gastroprotection, raising some concerns about clinical quality of care, but this did not appear to cause any measurable clinical harm in terms of hospitalizations for upper GI diseases.”
 

Debate around ‘unnecessary PPI use’

According to Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, the study “makes an attempt to do what others have tried in different ways, which is to develop a mechanism to help reduce or discontinue proton pump inhibitors when people believe they’re not indicated.”

Yet this latter element – appropriate indication – drives an ongoing debate.

“This is a very controversial area,” Dr. Katz said in an interview. “The concept of using the lowest effective dose of medication needed for a symptom or a disease is not new, but the push to reducing or eliminating ‘unnecessary PPI use’ is one that I believe should be carefully discussed, and that we have a clear understanding of what constitutes unnecessary use. And quite honestly, I’m willing to state that I don’t believe that’s been well defined.”

Dr. Katz, who recently coauthored an article about PPIs, suggested that more prospective research is needed to identify which patients need PPIs and which don’t.

“What we really need are more studies that look at who really needs [PPIs] long term,” Dr. Katz said, “as opposed to doing it ad hoc.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharma.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use can safely be reduced by deprescribing efforts coupled with patient and clinician education, according to a retrospective study involving more than 4 million veterans.

After 1 year, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in PPI use without worsening of acid-related diseases, reported lead author Jacob E. Kurlander, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System’s Center for Clinical Management Research.

“There’s increasing interest in interventions to reduce PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander said during his virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). “Many of the interventions have come in the form of patient and provider education, like the Choosing Wisely campaign put out by the American Board of Internal Medicine. However, in rigorous studies, few interventions have actually proven effective, and many of these studies lack data on clinical outcomes, so it’s difficult to ascertain the real clinical benefits, or even harms.”

In an effort to address this gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective, difference-in-difference study spanning 10 years, from 2009 to 2019. The 1-year intervention, implemented in August 2013, included refill restrictions for PPIs without documented indication for long-term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not filled within 6 months, a quick-order option for H2-receptor antagonists, reports to identify high-dose PPI prescribing, and patient and clinician education.

The intervention group consisted of 192,607-250,349 veterans in Veteran Integrated Service Network 17, whereas the control group consisted of 3,775,978-4,360,908 veterans in other service networks (ranges in population size are due to variations across 6-month intervals of analysis). For each 6-month interval, patients were included if they had at least two primary care visits within the past 2 years, and excluded if they received primary care at three other sites that joined the intervention site after initial implementation.

The investigators analyzed three main outcomes: Proportion of veterans dispensed a PPI prescription from the VA at any dose; incidence proportion of hospitalization for upper GI diseases, including upper GI bleeding other than from esophageal varices or angiodysplasia, as well as nonbleeding acid peptic disease; and rates of primary care visits, gastroenterology visits, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs).

The analysis was divided into a preimplementation period, lasting approximately 5 years, and a postimplementation period with a similar duration. In the postimplementation period, the intervention group had a 5.9% relative reduction in PPI prescriptions, compared with the control group (P < .001). During the same period, the intervention site did not have a significant increase in the rate of patients hospitalized for upper GI diseases, primary care visits, GI clinic visits, or EGDs.

In a subgroup analysis of patients coprescribed PPIs during time at high-risk for upper GI bleeding (that is, when they possessed at least two high-risk medications, such as warfarin), there was a 4.6% relative reduction in time with PPI gastroprotection among the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003). In a second sensitivity analysis, hospitalization for upper GI diseases in high-risk patients at least 65 years of age was not significantly different between groups.

“[This] multicomponent PPI deprescribing program led to sustained reductions in PPI use,” Dr. Kurlander concluded. “However, this blunt intervention also reduced appropriate use of PPIs for gastroprotection, raising some concerns about clinical quality of care, but this did not appear to cause any measurable clinical harm in terms of hospitalizations for upper GI diseases.”
 

Debate around ‘unnecessary PPI use’

According to Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of motility laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, the study “makes an attempt to do what others have tried in different ways, which is to develop a mechanism to help reduce or discontinue proton pump inhibitors when people believe they’re not indicated.”

Yet this latter element – appropriate indication – drives an ongoing debate.

“This is a very controversial area,” Dr. Katz said in an interview. “The concept of using the lowest effective dose of medication needed for a symptom or a disease is not new, but the push to reducing or eliminating ‘unnecessary PPI use’ is one that I believe should be carefully discussed, and that we have a clear understanding of what constitutes unnecessary use. And quite honestly, I’m willing to state that I don’t believe that’s been well defined.”

Dr. Katz, who recently coauthored an article about PPIs, suggested that more prospective research is needed to identify which patients need PPIs and which don’t.

“What we really need are more studies that look at who really needs [PPIs] long term,” Dr. Katz said, “as opposed to doing it ad hoc.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharma.

While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.

The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.

“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.

The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.

Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
 

Reassuring data that should prompt referral

Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.

“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
 

Impact of the HOPE Act

Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.

The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.

However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.

Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
 

Progress in a still-underserved population

The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.

Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.

In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.

Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.

In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.

The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.

“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.

Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.

While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.

The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.

“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.

The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.

Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
 

Reassuring data that should prompt referral

Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.

“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
 

Impact of the HOPE Act

Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.

The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.

However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.

Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
 

Progress in a still-underserved population

The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.

Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.

In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.

Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.

In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.

The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.

“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.

Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.

While liver transplant outcomes were historically poor in people coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV), they have improved significantly in the era of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, a recent analysis of U.S. organ transplant data showed.

The availability of highly potent DAA therapy should change how transplant specialists view patients coinfected with HIV/HCV who need a liver transplant, according to researcher Jennifer Wang, MD, chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago, who presented the results of the analysis at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). Cumulative graft survival rates since the introduction of DAAs are comparable between transplant recipients with HIV/HCV coinfection and recipients who are both HIV and HCV negative, according to the study.

“Having hepatitis C no longer confers worse patient survival in the DAA era, and this is the main takeaway from our study,” Dr. Wang said.

The study also showed that the number of liver transplants among HIV-infected patients has increased over the past 4-5 years. However, the absolute number remains low at 64 cases in 2019, or less than 1% of all liver transplants that year, and only about one-third of those HIV-positive recipients had HCV coinfection, according to Dr. Wang.

Moreover, relatively few centers are performing liver transplants for patients who are HIV/HCV coinfected, and there is significant geographic variation in where the procedures are done, she said in her presentation.
 

Reassuring data that should prompt referral

Taken together, these results should offer reassurance to transplant centers that patients coinfected with HIV/HCV are no longer at increased risk for poor outcomes after transplantation, said Christine M. Durand, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“The additional call for action should be beyond the transplantation community to ensure that referrals for liver transplant are where they should be,” Dr. Durand said in an interview.

“With a number of only 64 transplants a year, we’re not doing enough, and there are more patients that could benefit from liver transplants,” added Dr. Durand, who is principal investigator of HOPE in Action, a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and survival outcomes of HIV-positive deceased donor liver transplants in HIV-positive recipients.
 

Impact of the HOPE Act

Liver transplantation for HIV-positive patients has increased since the signing of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013, according to Dr. Wang.

The HOPE act expanded the donor pool to include HIV-positive deceased donors, which not only increased the donor supply overall, but specifically helped HIV-positive individuals, who experience a higher rate of waiting-list mortality, according to a review on the topic authored by Dr. Durand and coauthors.

However, some transplant centers may be reluctant to do liver transplants in HIV-positive patients coinfected with HCV. That’s because, in previous studies that were conducted before the DAA era, outcomes after liver transplant in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients were inferior to those in patients with HIV but no HCV infection, Dr. Wang said.

Accordingly, Dr. Wang and colleagues analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data on adult patients who underwent liver transplants between 2008 and 2019 to see if the introduction of DAAs had leveled the playing field for those with HCV coinfection.
 

Progress in a still-underserved population

The practice of liver transplant in the HIV population has been increasing since the HOPE Act, according to Dr. Wang.

Overall, out of 70,125 liver transplant recipients over the 2008-2019 period, 416 (0.6%) were HIV infected, the data show.

In 2014, 28 liver transplants (0.5%) were performed in HIV-infected individuals, which increased to 64 transplants (0.8%) in 2019, data show. Of those 64 HIV-positive liver transplant recipients in 2019, 23 (35.9%) were coinfected with HCV.

Graft survival has greatly improved, from a 3-year survival of only 58% in patients transplanted before the availability of DAAs to 82% in the DAA era, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. Wang said.

In the DAA era, there was no significant difference in graft failure outcomes when comparing HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients with uninfected recipients, she added.

The largest proportion of liver transplantations in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients have been done in OPTN Region 9 (New York), both in the pre- and post-DAA eras, according to Dr. Wang. Several regions have very low numbers or have performed no liver transplants in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in either era.

“The number of transplant centers participating in liver transplant for coinfected patients is still quite low, so this is a very underserved patient population,” Dr. Wang said.

Dr. Wang provided no financial disclosures related to the research. Dr. Durand receives grants to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline and she receives honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee.

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.