Federal Practitioner

Every psychiatrist knows that this past year has been a challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic altered our lives, practically overnight, in ways that most of us had never anticipated.

There were months of lockdown. A new work-from-home transition. Recommendations to distance and mask. The destruction and recreation of our social lives. And the end of some industries as we have known them.

Over a year later, many children are still in virtual school. This lifestyle and economic toll do not even begin to include the horror experienced by exhausted and distressed health care workers or by the many who have lost a loved one or survived a hospitalization. National and international anxiety are running high. More people are seeking mental health care, and many of the patients we were caring for prior to the pandemic have been distressed.

Rates of both depression and anxiety are up, and the fear has been that the isolation of lockdowns, with their emotional and economic toll, would also increase suicide rates. Despite the increase in psychiatric symptoms and general distress, initial studies in the United States have shown that overall suicide rates in the early months of the pandemic were lower than in prior years.

A study published in The Lancet looked at suicide data from around the world and compared expected suicides, based on data from past years, with observed suicides. The researchers restricted their analysis to the countries, and regions of countries, where real-time suicide data were available through internet searches. Their paper is based on findings from 21 countries, including 16 high-income countries and five upper-middle–income countries (from regions where data were available). The overall analysis showed a drop in suicides by 5% when looking at the first 4 months of the pandemic, defined as April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020. There were statistically significant increases in suicide only in Vienna, Puerto Rico, and Japan.

Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, directs the Suicide Research and Prevention Lab and the Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He was not surprised by these findings.

“This is an important study,” Dr. Galynker said. “When it was discovered that U.S. rates went down, it was ‘U.S. specific’ and it was confounded by the fact that there was a dramatic increase in opiate overdose deaths in the U.S., which are not reported as suicides. This study shows that the decrease is international and that the finding in the United States is not related to the spike in overdose deaths.”

The study authors postulated that the drop in suicide may be due to proactive protective measures that societies have put in place, such as improved mental health services and fiscal support to mitigate financial consequences of the pandemic. They explained that “communities might have actively tried to support at-risk individuals, people might have connected in new ways, and some relationships might have been strengthened by households spending more time with each other. For some people, everyday stresses might have been reduced during stay-at-home periods, and for others the collective feeling of ‘we’re all in this together’ might have been beneficial”.

Dr. Galynker noted that, in times of calamity, suicide rates historically go down. “Short-term disasters invoke a fight-or-flight response that mobilizes us and improves our functioning under stress. Those acute responses last 2-3 months and then chronic stress sets in.” He is concerned that there will be increases in suicide rates down the road.

It is possible that individuals who consider social gatherings to be stressful, or who are bullied at school, may have found some relief from social interactions and expectations during the lockdown. “Some people have discovered that they like their families!” Dr. Galynker said.

While suicide rates have gone down, that is not true for all population subsets, and the authors of the Lancet paper noted that they were unable to give breakdowns of rates for different demographics.

Paul Nestadt, MD, is codirector of the Johns Hopkins Anxiety Disorders Clinic and studies suicide, firearms, and opiates. He looked at suicides in Maryland during the first 2 months of the lockdown (March 5, 2020 to May 7, 2020) and found that, while rates were down among White Maryland residents, compared with prior years, they were increased among Black Maryland residents. Studies in Connecticut and Chicago yielded similar findings. These findings indicate that the overall trends may not reflect the impact on a specific subpopulation.

Dr. Nestadt talked about the disparities of suicide trends. “Communities hit harder by this pandemic in terms of sickness and death may experience more distress in ways that may come out as suicide in the context of other comorbid mood disorders. Also, in line with the idea of suicide as a marker of community- or population-level distress, there’s a general idea that having less of an economic cushion makes the pandemic more of a problem for some than for others. We know that suicide has been correlated to economic distress in general, and it makes sense that it would be community-specific where there is more economic duress.”

It has been a difficult year – not just for the United States, but for the entire world. One thing that may come of it is a unique opportunity to look at how stress and loss affect suicide rates, with the hope that preventive measures will follow.

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

Every psychiatrist knows that this past year has been a challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic altered our lives, practically overnight, in ways that most of us had never anticipated.

There were months of lockdown. A new work-from-home transition. Recommendations to distance and mask. The destruction and recreation of our social lives. And the end of some industries as we have known them.

Over a year later, many children are still in virtual school. This lifestyle and economic toll do not even begin to include the horror experienced by exhausted and distressed health care workers or by the many who have lost a loved one or survived a hospitalization. National and international anxiety are running high. More people are seeking mental health care, and many of the patients we were caring for prior to the pandemic have been distressed.

Rates of both depression and anxiety are up, and the fear has been that the isolation of lockdowns, with their emotional and economic toll, would also increase suicide rates. Despite the increase in psychiatric symptoms and general distress, initial studies in the United States have shown that overall suicide rates in the early months of the pandemic were lower than in prior years.

A study published in The Lancet looked at suicide data from around the world and compared expected suicides, based on data from past years, with observed suicides. The researchers restricted their analysis to the countries, and regions of countries, where real-time suicide data were available through internet searches. Their paper is based on findings from 21 countries, including 16 high-income countries and five upper-middle–income countries (from regions where data were available). The overall analysis showed a drop in suicides by 5% when looking at the first 4 months of the pandemic, defined as April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020. There were statistically significant increases in suicide only in Vienna, Puerto Rico, and Japan.

Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, directs the Suicide Research and Prevention Lab and the Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He was not surprised by these findings.

“This is an important study,” Dr. Galynker said. “When it was discovered that U.S. rates went down, it was ‘U.S. specific’ and it was confounded by the fact that there was a dramatic increase in opiate overdose deaths in the U.S., which are not reported as suicides. This study shows that the decrease is international and that the finding in the United States is not related to the spike in overdose deaths.”

The study authors postulated that the drop in suicide may be due to proactive protective measures that societies have put in place, such as improved mental health services and fiscal support to mitigate financial consequences of the pandemic. They explained that “communities might have actively tried to support at-risk individuals, people might have connected in new ways, and some relationships might have been strengthened by households spending more time with each other. For some people, everyday stresses might have been reduced during stay-at-home periods, and for others the collective feeling of ‘we’re all in this together’ might have been beneficial”.

Dr. Galynker noted that, in times of calamity, suicide rates historically go down. “Short-term disasters invoke a fight-or-flight response that mobilizes us and improves our functioning under stress. Those acute responses last 2-3 months and then chronic stress sets in.” He is concerned that there will be increases in suicide rates down the road.

It is possible that individuals who consider social gatherings to be stressful, or who are bullied at school, may have found some relief from social interactions and expectations during the lockdown. “Some people have discovered that they like their families!” Dr. Galynker said.

While suicide rates have gone down, that is not true for all population subsets, and the authors of the Lancet paper noted that they were unable to give breakdowns of rates for different demographics.

Paul Nestadt, MD, is codirector of the Johns Hopkins Anxiety Disorders Clinic and studies suicide, firearms, and opiates. He looked at suicides in Maryland during the first 2 months of the lockdown (March 5, 2020 to May 7, 2020) and found that, while rates were down among White Maryland residents, compared with prior years, they were increased among Black Maryland residents. Studies in Connecticut and Chicago yielded similar findings. These findings indicate that the overall trends may not reflect the impact on a specific subpopulation.

Dr. Nestadt talked about the disparities of suicide trends. “Communities hit harder by this pandemic in terms of sickness and death may experience more distress in ways that may come out as suicide in the context of other comorbid mood disorders. Also, in line with the idea of suicide as a marker of community- or population-level distress, there’s a general idea that having less of an economic cushion makes the pandemic more of a problem for some than for others. We know that suicide has been correlated to economic distress in general, and it makes sense that it would be community-specific where there is more economic duress.”

It has been a difficult year – not just for the United States, but for the entire world. One thing that may come of it is a unique opportunity to look at how stress and loss affect suicide rates, with the hope that preventive measures will follow.

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

Every psychiatrist knows that this past year has been a challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic altered our lives, practically overnight, in ways that most of us had never anticipated.

There were months of lockdown. A new work-from-home transition. Recommendations to distance and mask. The destruction and recreation of our social lives. And the end of some industries as we have known them.

Over a year later, many children are still in virtual school. This lifestyle and economic toll do not even begin to include the horror experienced by exhausted and distressed health care workers or by the many who have lost a loved one or survived a hospitalization. National and international anxiety are running high. More people are seeking mental health care, and many of the patients we were caring for prior to the pandemic have been distressed.

Rates of both depression and anxiety are up, and the fear has been that the isolation of lockdowns, with their emotional and economic toll, would also increase suicide rates. Despite the increase in psychiatric symptoms and general distress, initial studies in the United States have shown that overall suicide rates in the early months of the pandemic were lower than in prior years.

A study published in The Lancet looked at suicide data from around the world and compared expected suicides, based on data from past years, with observed suicides. The researchers restricted their analysis to the countries, and regions of countries, where real-time suicide data were available through internet searches. Their paper is based on findings from 21 countries, including 16 high-income countries and five upper-middle–income countries (from regions where data were available). The overall analysis showed a drop in suicides by 5% when looking at the first 4 months of the pandemic, defined as April 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020. There were statistically significant increases in suicide only in Vienna, Puerto Rico, and Japan.

Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, directs the Suicide Research and Prevention Lab and the Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He was not surprised by these findings.

“This is an important study,” Dr. Galynker said. “When it was discovered that U.S. rates went down, it was ‘U.S. specific’ and it was confounded by the fact that there was a dramatic increase in opiate overdose deaths in the U.S., which are not reported as suicides. This study shows that the decrease is international and that the finding in the United States is not related to the spike in overdose deaths.”

The study authors postulated that the drop in suicide may be due to proactive protective measures that societies have put in place, such as improved mental health services and fiscal support to mitigate financial consequences of the pandemic. They explained that “communities might have actively tried to support at-risk individuals, people might have connected in new ways, and some relationships might have been strengthened by households spending more time with each other. For some people, everyday stresses might have been reduced during stay-at-home periods, and for others the collective feeling of ‘we’re all in this together’ might have been beneficial”.

Dr. Galynker noted that, in times of calamity, suicide rates historically go down. “Short-term disasters invoke a fight-or-flight response that mobilizes us and improves our functioning under stress. Those acute responses last 2-3 months and then chronic stress sets in.” He is concerned that there will be increases in suicide rates down the road.

It is possible that individuals who consider social gatherings to be stressful, or who are bullied at school, may have found some relief from social interactions and expectations during the lockdown. “Some people have discovered that they like their families!” Dr. Galynker said.

While suicide rates have gone down, that is not true for all population subsets, and the authors of the Lancet paper noted that they were unable to give breakdowns of rates for different demographics.

Paul Nestadt, MD, is codirector of the Johns Hopkins Anxiety Disorders Clinic and studies suicide, firearms, and opiates. He looked at suicides in Maryland during the first 2 months of the lockdown (March 5, 2020 to May 7, 2020) and found that, while rates were down among White Maryland residents, compared with prior years, they were increased among Black Maryland residents. Studies in Connecticut and Chicago yielded similar findings. These findings indicate that the overall trends may not reflect the impact on a specific subpopulation.

Dr. Nestadt talked about the disparities of suicide trends. “Communities hit harder by this pandemic in terms of sickness and death may experience more distress in ways that may come out as suicide in the context of other comorbid mood disorders. Also, in line with the idea of suicide as a marker of community- or population-level distress, there’s a general idea that having less of an economic cushion makes the pandemic more of a problem for some than for others. We know that suicide has been correlated to economic distress in general, and it makes sense that it would be community-specific where there is more economic duress.”

It has been a difficult year – not just for the United States, but for the entire world. One thing that may come of it is a unique opportunity to look at how stress and loss affect suicide rates, with the hope that preventive measures will follow.

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

I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.

There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.

However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?

The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.

Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.

I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?

While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.

Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.

This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that a landmark court decision can represent a drop in the bucket for Black and Brown people who risk being shot by the police while unarmed just for being Black or Brown.

Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.

Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.

Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.

People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.

But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
 

Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.

There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.

However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?

The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.

Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.

I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?

While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.

Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.

This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that a landmark court decision can represent a drop in the bucket for Black and Brown people who risk being shot by the police while unarmed just for being Black or Brown.

Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.

Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.

Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.

People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.

But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
 

Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

I woke up from a nap on Tuesday, April 20, to a barrage of text messages and social media alerts about the Derek Chauvin verdict. Messages varied in content, from “let’s celebrate,” to “just so exciting,” to “finally.” As I took in the sentiments of others, I could barely sense what, if any, sentiments I had of my own.

There I sat, a Black DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] consultant who calls herself a “psychiatrist-activist,” but slept through the landmark court decision for policing African Americans and felt almost nothing about it.

However, I did have feelings about other matters such as the slide decks due for my client, sending reassuring text messages about the hospitalization of a friend’s child, and the 2 weeks of patient notes on my to-do list. So why did I feel emotionally flatlined about an issue that should stimulate the opposite – emotional intensity?

The answer to “why” could be attributed to a number of psychological buzz words like trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, numbness, or my new favorite term, languishing.

Despite the applicability of any of the above, I think my emotional flattening has more to do with the fact that in addition to the guilty verdict, I also woke up to news that 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant had been shot by a police officer in Columbus, Ohio.

I asked myself: How can anyone find time to grieve, nevertheless celebrate when (young) Black people continue to be killed by the police?

While it hurts to see individuals who look like me being shot by police, or even emboldened citizens, my hurt likely pales in comparison to someone who grew up surrounded by police gun violence. I grew up solidly middle class, lived in a house at the end of a cul-de-sac in a semi-gated community, and have many years ahead of me to reach my earning potential as a physician in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. While I have the skin color that puts me at risk of being shot by police due to racism, I am in a cushy position compared to other Black people who live in cities or neighborhoods with more police shootings.

Given this line of thinking, it seems clearer to me why I do not feel like celebrating, but instead, feel grateful to be alive. Not only do I feel grateful to be alive, but alive with the emotional stamina to help White people understand their contributions to the widespread oppression that keeps our society rooted in white supremacy.

This brings me to my point of what I want people, especially physicians, to know about the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin: Some of us cannot really celebrate until there is actual police reform. This is not to say that anyone is wrong to celebrate, as long as there is an understanding that a landmark court decision can represent a drop in the bucket for Black and Brown people who risk being shot by the police while unarmed just for being Black or Brown.

Meanwhile, White men like Kyle Rittenhouse who are peaceably arrested after shooting a man with a semi-automatic weapon receive donations from a Virginia police lieutenant; a policeman who, in a possible world, could one day pull me over while driving through Virginia given its proximity to Washington D.C., where I currently live.

Black and Brown people cannot fully celebrate until there is actual police reform, and reform across American institutions like the health care system. Celebration comes when the leaders who run schools, hospitals, and courtrooms look more like the numbers actually reflected in U.S. racial demographics and look less like Derek Chauvin.

Until there are more doctors who look like the racial breakdown of the nation, Black and Brown patients can never fully trust their primary care doctors, orthopedic surgeons, and psychiatrists who are White. While this reality may sound harsh, it is the reality for many of us who are dealing with trauma, grief, desensitization, dissociation, emotional numbness, or languishment resulting from racist experiences.

People of color cannot and will not stop protesting in the streets, being the one who always brings up race in the meeting, or disagreeing that the new changes are “not enough” until there is actual anti-racist institutional reform. More importantly, the efforts of people of color can be made more powerful working collectively with White allies.

But we need White allies who recognize their tendency to perceive “progress” in racial equality. We need White allies who recognize that despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the two-time election of a Black president, and the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, there is still so much work to do.
 

Dr. Cyrus is assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.

ChrisPole/thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.

In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.

Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).

However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.

“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
 

Consider surveillance for Barrett’s

The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”

Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.

“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.

Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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