Federal Practitioner

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.

Cigarettes are still the product of choice among U.S. adults who use tobacco, but the youngest adults are more likely to use e-cigarettes than any other product, according to data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

Just under 21% of all adults (an estimated 50.6 million individuals) said they used tobacco products “every day” or “some days,” with cigarette use reported by the largest share of respondents (14.0%) and e-cigarettes next at 4.5%, Monica E. Cornelius, PhD, and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among adults aged 18-24 years, however, e-cigarettes were used by 9.3% of respondents in 2019, compared with 8.0% who used cigarettes every day or some days. Current e-cigarette use was 6.4% in 25- to 44-year-olds and continued to diminish with increasing age, said Dr. Cornelius and associates at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Men were more likely than women to use e-cigarettes (5.5% vs. 3.5%), and to use any tobacco product (26.2% vs. 15.7%). Use of other products, including cigarettes (15.3% for men vs. 12.7% for women), followed the same pattern to varying degrees, the national survey data show.

“Differences in prevalence of tobacco use also were also seen across population groups, with higher prevalence among those with a [high school equivalency degree], American Indian/Alaska Natives, uninsured adults and adults with Medicaid, and [lesbian, gay, or bisexual] adults,” the investigators said.

Among those groups, overall tobacco use and cigarette use were highest in those with an equivalency degree (43.8%, 37.1%), while lesbian/gay/bisexual individuals had the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use at 11.5%, they reported.

“As part of a comprehensive approach” to reduce tobacco-related disease and death, Dr. Cornelius and associates suggested, “targeted interventions are also warranted to reach subpopulations with the highest prevalence of use, which might vary by tobacco product type.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cornelius ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 20;69(46);1736-42.

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”

Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.

They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.

For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.

On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.

The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.

The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.

The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.

“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.

In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”

For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”

Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”

But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.

“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”

For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.

Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”

Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.

The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.

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

People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”

Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.

They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.

For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.

On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.

The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.

The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.

The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.

“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.

In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”

For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”

Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”

But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.

“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”

For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.

Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”

Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.

The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.

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

People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”

Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.

They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.

For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.

On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.

The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.

The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.

The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.

“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.

In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”

For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”

Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”

But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.

“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”

For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.

Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”

Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.

The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.

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

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

A neoadjuvant strategy combining two immunostimulatory agents with differing mechanisms of action is efficacious and safe in patients with high-risk, resectable melanoma, according to final results of the phase 2 Neo-C-Nivo trial.

The two agents are the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CMP-001, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist that activates tumor-associated plasmacytoid dendritic cells.

CMP-001 and nivolumab produced a major pathologic response in 60% of patients, and these patients had a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of 89%. About 23% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, and there were no grade 4-5 treatment-related events.

These data were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Stage III melanoma is a very, very high risk disease. Despite appropriate management, which involves surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, a large number of patients still relapse,” noted study author Diwakar Davar, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this setting enhances the systemic T-cell response to tumor antigens,” he explained. “As a result, there is greater detection and killing of micrometastatic disease. And, indeed, neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti–[programmed death–1] monotherapy or with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 combination therapy produces high response rates, although the combination therapy is associated with significant toxicity.”
 

Patients, treatment, and response

The Neo-C-Nivo trial enrolled 31 patients with resectable stage IIIB/C/D melanoma having clinically apparent lymph node disease.

The patients were treated with three cycles of nivolumab given every 2 weeks. They also received seven weekly injections of CMP-001 subcutaneously and then intratumorally. After surgical resection, the patients received more of the same immunotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 15 months, 60% of patients had a major pathologic response, 50% had a complete response, and 10% had a major response. Some 70% of patients (after additionally including partial responders) had any pathologic response.

“More than half of the patients that we treated had more than one injectable lesion,” Dr. Davar noted. “I want to emphasize that only one lesion was injected, so the results we got illustrate that the rest of the patients who had more than one injectable lesion had regression in their injected and uninjected lesions.”

Biomarker analyses showed that response was associated with evidence of immune activation, both in the tumor and in the blood. With immunotherapy, the density of CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes increased by a median of 10.3-fold in pathologic responders as compared with only 0.8-fold in nonresponders (P < .05). In addition, responders had evidence of activated CD8-positive T cells peripherally, as well as presence of plasmacytoid dendritic cells within the tumor microenvironment.
 

Survival and safety

Patients had better median relapse-free survival if they attained a major pathologic response (not reached in either group, P = .0106) or any pathologic response (not reached vs. 5 months, P = .0001).

The landmark 1-year relapse-free survival rate was 89% for major pathologic responders and 90% for all pathologic responders.

Overall, 22.6% of patients experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, the majority of which did not require medical intervention and none of which delayed planned surgery. There were no grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events.

Cytokine release syndrome was uncommon, seen in 16.1% of patients, possibly because the cohort received prophylaxis, Dr. Davar proposed.
 

Another treatment option?

“Intratumoral CMP-001 increases clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade with minimal additional toxicity in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Further study of this combination in high-risk resectable melanoma is planned,” Dr. Davar concluded.

“This combination achieved high response rates and certainly should be considered for a larger trial,” agreed session cochair Brian Gastman, MD, of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

However, long-term outcomes are pending, and it is not clear how efficacy of the studied combination will ultimately stack up against that of other treatment options, Dr. Gastman cautioned in an interview. “For example, it’s hard to tell if this will lead to better results versus, say, T-VEC [talimogene laherparepvec] with an anti-PD-1 agent,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, “the implication of these findings is that there is another potential injectable option that can be combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and it may be useful for patients with refractory disease,” Dr. Gastman concluded.

The trial was funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Davar disclosed relationships with Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Array Biopharma, Merck, Shionogi, Vedanta, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CellSight Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline/Tesaro, and Medpacto. Dr. Gastman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Davar D et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 303.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delirium should be included on checklists of the presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in elderly adults, according to a multicenter study of seniors visiting emergency departments.

Overall, 28% of the 817 older adults who presented to the emergency department and were diagnosed with COVID-19 had delirium, according to a study published online November 19 in JAMA Network Open. Moreover, 16% of these patients had delirium that was not accompanied by typical symptoms or signs of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Among patients with delirium, there was a greater probability of admission to the intensive care unit compared with patients who presented without delirium (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30 – 2.15), as well as a greater probability of death (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 – 1.55).

“These findings suggest the clinical importance of including delirium on checklists of presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that guide screening, testing, and evaluation,” write Maura Kennedy, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

“I was absolutely seeing cases of delirium where there were no other symptoms of COVID-19, but we didn’t have lot of data on the frequency of this,” explained Kennedy, an emergency department physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“And the rate was somewhat surprising compared with that seen in non-COVID studies of delirium, but then our study population was more at risk, coming from long-term care facilities and having prior stroke or dementia,” she said. The most common form of delirium was hypoactive sleepiness and nonresponsiveness, although hyperactivity and agitation were also seen.

Kennedy thinks the addition of delirium as a common presenting symptom to diagnostic checklists would prevent some cases from being missed and allow earlier identification and management of COVID-19 patients at high risk for poor outcomes. “We certainly don’t want to send them back undiagnosed to a long-term care facility or promote transmission within the hospital,” she told Medscape Medical News.

That step has already been implemented in some US centers. “Delirium is something we’ve been looking at since the early summer,” said geriatrician Angela Catic, MD, an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Huffington Center on Aging and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas.

“If we see delirium, we’re looking for COVID-19,” said Catic, who was not involved in the study.

In Catic’s experience, it is “not at all atypical” to see patients whose only symptom of COVID-19 is delirium. As with other infections and diseases, “the aging brain is incredibly vulnerable,” she said.

According to William W. Hung, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, delirium is “generally a common sign of something seriously wrong” in older adults. “In the case of COVID-19, low oxygenation caused by the infection may play a role,” he told Medscape Medical News. Although he agreed that delirium should be included in the differential diagnosis of COVID-19, how frequently it is the only symptom at presentation would need to be determined in a considerably larger population, he said.

Joining the company of those observing this COVID-19 manifestation is Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, a professor of emergency medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. He was not a participant in the current study.

“I have absolutely seen and documented delirium as the presenting complaint in older adult patients who were ultimately diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, and since March, I contemplate SARS-CoV-2 each time I identify delirium,” Carpenter told Medscape Medical News. “Honestly, I ― and most of my colleagues ― are considering SARS-CoV-2 for a range of symptoms and complaints these days, because of the odd presentations we’ve all encountered.”
 

Study details

For the study, Kennedy and colleagues enrolled consecutive adults aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with active COVID-19 and who presented to emergency departments at seven centers in Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Michigan, and North Carolina on or after March 13, 2020. Active infection with SARS-CoV-2 was determined on the basis of results of nasal swab polymerase chain reaction tests (99% of cases) or the appearance and distribution of ground-glass opacities on chest radiography or CT (1%).

Of the 817 patients enrolled, 386 (47%) were men, 493 (62%) were White, 215 (27%) were Black, and 54 (7%) were Hispanic or Latinx. The mean age of patients was 77.7 years (standard deviation, 8.2). Their age placed them at risk for chronic comorbidities and cognitive problems; indeed, 15% had at least four chronic conditions, and 30% had existing cognitive impairment.

The authors note that among the 226 patients (28%) who had delirium at presentation, 60 (27%) had experienced delirium for a duration of 2 to 7 days.

Additionally, of the 226 patients who exhibited delirium as a primary symptom, 84 (37%) showed no typical COVID-19 symptoms or signs, such as cough, fever, or shortness of breath.

The presence of delirium did not correlate with any of the typical COVID-19 symptoms in particular; Kennedy noted that only 56% of patients in the cohort had a fever at presentation.

Delirium at presentation was significantly associated with a median hospital stay of more than 8 days (aRR, 1.14; 95% CI, .97 – 1.35) and a greater risk for discharge to a rehabilitation facility (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07 – 2.26). Factors associated with delirium included age older than 75 years, residence in a nursing home or assisted-living facility, previous use of psychoactive medications, vision impairment, hearing impairment, stroke, and Parkinson’s disease.

Kennedy noted that the rate of delirium observed in this study is much higher than that generally reported in emergency department studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. In those studies, the delirium rate ranged from 7% to 20%. The associated risk factors, however, are comparable.

“Mounting evidence supports the high occurrence of delirium and other neuropsychiatric manifestations with COVID-19, with previously reported rates of 22% to 33% among hospitalized patients,” Kennedy and associates write.

In Carpenter’s opinion, the development of incident delirium while receiving care in the emergency department, as opposed to delirium at the time of presentation, has been exacerbated by the no-visitor policies mandated by the pandemic, which have prevented visits even from personal caregivers of patients with moderate to severe dementia. “Although healthcare systems need to be cognizant of the risk of spread to uninfected caregivers, there’s a risk-benefit balance that must be found, because having one caregiver at the bedside can prevent delirium in cognitively impaired patients,” said Carpenter, who was not involved in the current study.

Among the barriers to improving the situation, Carpenter cited the lack of routine delirium screening and the absence of high-quality evidence to support emergency department interventions to mitigate delirium.

“Layer those challenges on top of COVID-19’s rapidly evolving diagnostic landscape, frequent atypical presentations, and asymptomatic carriers across all age groups and the negative impact of delirium is magnified,” Carpenter said.

Once elderly patients are hospitalized, Kennedy recommends the nonpharmacologic guidelines of the Hospital Elder Life Program for reducing delirium risk. Recommendations include the providing of adequate sleep, hydration, and nutrition, as well as function restoration, precipitant avoidance, and reorientation.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging and the Massachusetts Medical School. The authors, Carpenter, Hung, and Catic have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.